Robin Hood Belongs To Us

White Advocates don’t necessarily share political views beyond the immediate scope of our common defense of our heritage and identity. Heck, we can’t even agree on which aspects of our heritage are worth preserving or how to define our identity. Some of us would be within the bounds of mainstream conservative discourse were it not for “the race thing”. Some of us aren’t even conservative or traditional at all. We more than compensate for our dearth of chromatic diversity with a diversity of ideas, attitudes, dispositions, and perspectives.

Our Hoosier Nation team recently attendedthe Indianapolis edition of the Occupy Wall Street event both in solidarity with frustrated Hoosiers and to learn as much as possible about the spirit and direction of this phenomenon. What we found was that the majority of the attendees are relatively ordinary White people who are frustrated about the same problems the typical Tea Party supporter is frustrated about. They trend a bit more liberal and there are a few more non-Whites in the crowd, but the radical anti-White Leftism was almost entirely limited to the self-appointed “leaders” at the microphone.

Advertisement

The Tea Party phenomenon, the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon, the Ron Paul revolution, and even the Obama campaign represented the first stirrings of a deep-seated frustration with the elites, with the parameters of “respectable” discourse and action imposed by those elites, and with a projected future of increasing debt, decline, and dispossession. Unlike the torchbearers of yesteryear, we no longer need to convince people that it’s all going to hell. That once-insurmountable wall of satisfaction with the status quo is crumbling. We need to be out there chipping away at it and educating people about what to do once they’ve broken through to the other side.

We can’t afford to truly “support” any group that explicitly and directly distances itself from us and refuses to acknowledge our peoples’ right to exist. What we can do is throw our support behind specific campaigns which are commensurate with our goals. Ron Paul’s “End the Fed” campaign is one example and his isolationist foreign policy stance is another. Given that the federal government has become the single most powerful enforcement arm of the anti-White system, we would do well to carpool with the federalist and free market types up until they drive their car off the cliff of libertarian extremism.

Until we can reach a point at which we can begin defining and promoting campaigns, we’ll have to settle for identifying and supporting the campaigns aligned with our goals—regardless of the social or institutional context from which they emerged. The most recent example of this is the Robin Hood Taxthat AdBusters recently proposed that the Occupy Wall Street movement rally behind.

On October 29, on the eve of the G20 Leaders Summit in France, let’s the people of the world rise up and demand that our G20 leaders immediately impose a 1% #ROBINHOOD tax on all financial transactions and currency trades. Let’s send them a clear message: We want you to slow down some of that $1.3-trillion easy money that’s sloshing around the global casino each day – enough cash to fund every social program and environmental initiative in the world.

The whole initiative is being proposed by Leftists pursuing another revenue stream for their global agenda. They’re already getting ahead of themselves in scheming about all the silly liberal initiatives the new money could be wasted on. It will, of course, be wasted in one way or another. But that’s beside the point. The point is that imposing this tax would curtail the most egregious speculation and market manipulation. By throwing our support behind this initiative, we can take up the fight against the international bankers. It’s an opportunity to educate our audience about the identities and histories of the global financiers, as well.

While the Tea Party movement and Ron Paul campaign are implicitly White and align substantially with our interests, we’ve learned by now that a cause which is only implicitly White will eventually become explicitly anti-White in its rhetoric and finally become effectively anti-White in its impact. The meteoric rise of Herman Cain, the Great Black Hope of insecure Tea Partiers, is only the most recent example of White America’s tortured process of consciously and deliberately sabotaging the products of the sharpening pangs of tribalism which are propelling them in the first place.

The key political demographic faction in play right now is the socially conservative White Democrat. After decades of perceiving their DNC as the party of the “little guy” against the greedy Republican fat cats, they’re increasingly uncomfortable and unwelcome in their home party. With each passing year, the party gets a little more overtly anti-White and anti-family. With each passing year, more of the union jobs Democrats supposedly defend are being shipped to countries the Democrats brokered “free trade” deals with. The single biggest shift since the mass migration of the Dixiecrats to the GOP is underway: the White Flight from the DNC ghetto.

Unlike the GOP of yesteryear which cleverly dog-whistled for the favor of those race-conscious Whites, this GOP is doing everything in its power to frighten off the Whites in the Heartland, the Rust Belt, and the rest of blue-collar America who’ve finally figure out—thanks to Obama, Holder, and pals—that the DNC isprogressively stackedagainst them. The White American worker has no credible advocate in the current political paradigm and is increasingly open to heterodox alternatives to the anti-White orthodoxy.

Step Up, Then Step Back...Whitey!

When they show up for the Tea Party rallies, they’re reminded that it’s led by a cabal of cutthroat capitalists hellbent on cutting off their unemployment compensation, eliminating their tax credits, and shipping their jobs to the lowest bidder in the world. When they show up for the Occupy Wall Street rallies, they’re told at the beginning of the event that they’re to step to the back of the linebehind the long list of gays, Blacks, lesbians, Mexicans, trannies, Jews, left-handers, and Asians who are more worthy than them (For some reason, we southpaws have been overlooked as a historically marginalized and victimized identity group…). The system deliberately and systematically strips them of a voice and both of the major street movements on the “left” and “right” also do this.

We have two basic tasks before us which are connected but relatively autonomous: education and mobilization. In order to keep our movement grounded, focused, and resistant to subversion, we must educate our target audience about the racial and Jewish dimensions of our problem. In order to keep our movement moving, we must mobilize behind campaigns which align with the our principles and perspectives. We can begin by standing behind a proposal which would hit international bankers hard and Jewish financial networks the hardest.

While we must never compromise or cloak our pro-White message, we should dedicate the majority of our resources to demonstrating our dedication to service and stewardship on behalf of our people. We have only one face card in our hand, and it’s that we alone honor the welfare and security of our constituents above all ideological or selfish considerations. In theory, we are the most passionate and consistent defenders of the most vulnerable and marginalized White American families. If we can translate that theory into practice, we may be able to win their loyalty and support…just like Robin Hood did.

Hear audio- Rand, Egalitarianism and Inflation. Money is neither gold nor paper- it is “goods which have been produced but not consumed”. I think this is wrong, but she was trying to bring real stuff into the economic picture, recognizing that one cannot eat gold, and that goods must be produced. How very kiky.

@Trenchant: well, since I have perhaps strained the patience of folks by my long-winded pieces, which you say are incorrect, why don’t you sum up the standard theory of how the Fed works, and criticize it point by point. You could do this in less space than I have taken up. For example, you could take the “thin air” dynamic that I outlined and tell all of us how it is wrong, either logically in theory, or in practice. Joe

@Joe Webb:
I’d recommend a more thorough read of Rothbard, or in fact any economist on the Federal Reserve System. Your understanding of the mechanics of the Fed is not correct, nor its significance.

Only then will you realize the role this institution has played in the parlous debt situation the US now faces. The government needs a central bank and a banking cartel as a default purchaser for its iou’s. That’s the whole point of the deal.

My economic mantra: it’s the baker who thinks of what cake to bring to market, sets aside money and resources, produces and then presents the creation to his potential consumer, who may or may not buy.

@Diana: OK, we get back to the Fed. Please go to wikipedia and read its rundown on the Fed. First, it is not all Jewish owned. Second, Fed money is loaned to the Treasury (and other banks) and gets paid back. When the money is paid back, if it has been loaned in the first place to”stimulate” the economy, when it is paid back, it is burned, literally burned. The Fed is like a Monopoly game type bank. IN this regard it is true that it was made from thin air, and when paid back, it is returned to thin air by burning. The latter part of the equation is not understood by the anti-Fed folks.

All the money loaned out to the US Treasury is chalked up as national debt. When that money is repaid, the national debt is reduced (and again, the money is burned up.) This is what monetary policy is, stimulate in recession, and pull back in boom times. It is an elastic system. This is its virtue. Can it solve all problems? No. Can fiscal policy (Obongo beating his drums) help an economy? yes, somewhat. Still these tools are only moderately useful.

My economic mantra: Consumer Demand is first. It drives investment. Saving is second, for Capital accumulation. However, the corporations right now are squatting on two trillion dollars in cash. The banks are afraid to loan, and investsment banks are also afraid to loan. Of course, not entirely.

The fundamental strength of an economy is, in more detail, consumer spending, saving, then investment/technology, and then Capital accumulation from profits. Right now, there is Surplus Capital per the NYT article above, and not enough wages/salaries.

By the way, the Fed is allowed by law to make about 5% profit on its transactions. I don’t fully understand how all of this works, in terms of details, but I think I have covered the basics. Basically the Fed’s employees get paid a salary, which I assume is in line with financial standards of compensation, but the Fed does not rake in large piles of money like brokerage houses. Its relative secrecy is to provide for independence and objectivity.

If a national or central bank of any particular country is abolished, then the default outcome is the Free Market…bound to self-destruct, imho. Joe

@Diana: Oh I do think bank reform is important. And I think the Fed should be audited and possibly eliminated. I’ve just come to the conclusion that as far as saving White Civilization and White people in general, it isn’t the big key. I could see a healthy White society with or without a central bank.

@Diana: Central Planning of course is a word out of the communist or anti-communist lexicon.

For the national economy, there ought to be a light touch from White Nationalist economic planners. If White people want to eat junk food, buy pornography and soda pop, not much can be done about it, except maybe to tax it a bit.

For international economic relations, a firm grasp of the capitalist arm by White Nationalist economists is appropriate. How will X investment help Americans? It does not have to be merely an economic determination. Our trade with White countries should continue as much as possible. This advances Whites assuming that “comparative advantage” can be applied rationally amongst White countries.

Asian countries have been using a directed economy for some time with more pluses than minuses. There would be a learning curve here since Americans are so allergic to gov’t direction.

Of course, gov’t direction in the US is nothing new…it has just been direction in the wrong direction, like Nafta, Free Trade, etc.

One of the things is not to give away or “sell” technology that took us decades to develop. There is no Price that can justify strategic economic or technologicall or military giveaways.

Secondly, the education establishment needs overhaul. It is wasting trillions on the muds. Third, infrastructure needs public investment. Everybody knows that apparently.

But the main point is that short term profit does not address the long run. Some would argue that the long-run cannot be known. That is certainly not true about politics, demographics, and race. Economic long-run will not be easy to figure out, but we need jobs that pay well to drive consumer demand.

I would guess that that is not a difficult one…just raise tariffs on third world semi-slave labor produced goods, and so on. I also understand that computer technology was gov’t directed. There is a kind of left-wing argument here that is unavoidable. If we are going to build a White society that works for all of its members, then some sharing with workers needs to be done.

At the personal level, remember, if you are bright, it is only because you chose your parents well. Luck is not a solid way to build a society. An organic society means a racial society wherein we are, if not brothers and sisters, at least cousins. Joe

and then there is the mystical believe in capital. just give me a little more money, pleease! the rich are addicted to money like drug addicts to drugs, the obese to food, sex addicts to sex, etc.
Money is not the source of all evil but the love of money is . . . .

@Trenchant: We do have real world examples of ethnic groups coming to dominate an industry that don’t seem to require government support.

For example, the Jewish dominance of Hollywood: This wasn’t made possible by government. Yet for the last 100 years, most of the major powers in Hollywood were Jewish. And of course, Margaret Chua has written about Market Dominant Minorities (like the Overseas Chinese) dominating the Philippine economy (of course, the Chinese are smarter than the Filipinos). Now, these groups may not be “evil”, but it is still a matter of fact that ethnic groups do come to dominant certain industries.

And if these areas are of national security interest or sensitive industries/professions that guide national policy, well it could be of interest to a People.

“Somehow, in the first place, more money has to be put into circulation just to accomodate population increases, unless of course, deflation lowers prices.”

Yes, deflation lowers prices. But doesn’t necessarily affect margins, the important thing for business (and individuals). If my wage goes down in nominal terms, and the cost of living does too by a corresponding amount, then I’m neither worse nor better off..

“Deflation is not good because it creates a psychological mood of refusal to buy today if the price will be lower next week.”No, for the very reason I explained above. Incomes fall along with other prices. In the thirties, the unemployment was caused by Hoover and FDR’s opposition and regulating against wage cuts. With money supply falling around 1/3 from ’29 to ’32, this means that the value of the dollar increased by around 33% in real terms. If your salary stayed the same nominally, you were enjoying a 33% real pay-rise. Of course, many businesses could not afford this, and mass-unemployment was the result.
Hülsmann has written a small booklet in simple language that helps to de-mystify deflation.http://mises.org/books/deflationandliberty.pdf

@Joe Webb:
Credit is perfectly possible without FRB. I loan you $10 from my savings. I sacrifice purchasing power now so that you may enjoy it. I demand a price for this sacrifice and the risk that I never see my money again.

FRB means that borrowers can consume without the corresponding sacrifice from lenders. Hence the coordination problems at a macro level.

I don’t have any problem with your analysis of the economy at this point.
However, it is complicated by the fact that the government of the US does owe a massive and unpayable amount of $$to the private Jewish owned Federal Reserve Bank.
It is both the war machine and the welfare state that have
bankrupted this country. And then you toss in globalization and ship the ethnics in and the jobs out and you have 2011.

upon sleeping on the above considerations about Rothbard and other Jewish libertarians, I have solved the problem of their motivation. When the Free Market in banking is established, the market-dominant elite of jews can take over.

They want a Global Free Market. No regulation, no national rules or Rule …which is enforced by a national authority like a central bank. When an international Free Market in banking, “investment banking” as well, is in place, Jews Rule.

Now that may be a paranoid stretch, but the Rich Jews want inflation at zero. They can get their country club repugnicans to go along with them. They also get to satisfy their centuries-old obsession with Gold ( goldburg, golding, feingold, steingold, goldwater, goldenstein, golda Meier, ) by having piles of it stashed here and there to fuel their daydreams .

There has been a lot of discussion of usury on this very long thread. Rothbard never addresses it. Nor does he go into the other factors of capitalist production and consumption. It is all Finance, the Jewish compulsion.

Of course, in the real world of today, few Jews concern themselves with a gold standard, fractional reserve banking and its discourse. Think Ayn Rand/Greenspan, and the Objectivists with their day-dreams of Power, Power, and Power. This is a Jewish Obsession that goes back to the Old Testament. Glittering piles of gold, priests dancing around the gold by firelight, chanting from the Talmud. Etc.

AS I have said a dozen times or more, a US dollar buys what it can buy. It does so not because of Fort Knox, but because ordinary folks, unbefuddled by Abstractions, look around them at the factories, roads full of people in cars going to work, stores full of useful objects, and a lifetime of positive experiences of ten dollar bills in their wallets that somehow do the trick of exchange…and merrily go about their material lives….or have until recently when Surplus Capital and falling wages have put alarm into their psyches.

Why, why , why does this jewish obsession with piles of gold afflict our own ranks? Is it that any talk of immiserated workers and unfair distribution of wealth raises the red flag of socialism amongst us? Well, the issue is fundamentally a technical economic issue, not a moral issue. Consumer Demand drives any economy. Firms do not know what to produce if there is a flagging of “signals” of consumer demand. Investment follows Demand, not the reverse.

Ultimately, the technical economic factors do become a moral issue. Our White People are getting demoralized as we all know. Never mind the race politics for now. Economics will always be the first issue for legitimate reasons.

The last thing WN needs is a bunch of Libertarians talking about a Gold Standard, etc. They need to hear from us that their wages are falling because Wall St. (jew meme ) does not care about them. They need to hear from us that we oppose globalism, international capitalism, and job flight and Capital flight. We need to tell them that we need capitalism in one country, that we are fighting for them, and not for Capital.

I lived in a multi-cultural city for years and although your ideas sound good. Forget it.
Merely thinking the idea of white nationalism around a member of another race is likely to get you shouted down.
They are racists, and anti-white; they couldn’t very well be anything else given the media in this country for the last 50-75 years.
And they might be anyway. But they know how to play the race card, and they do it. Constantly.

The “Cain phenomenon” is such a blatantly “in your face whitey so here are your tax breaks” and provided by a black. What makes it doubly galling is that is makes obvious that the upper middle gets a tax break by sticking it to the lowest class. Provided by a black so that whitey can’t hide behind phoney rationalizations for, what is increasingly obvious, is a war against the white race.
Another great divide and conquer tactic.

I have finished Rothbard’s The Mystery of Banking. I skimmed about a quarter of it but read the rest of it, including his chapter on the Fed.

Let me make a speculative observation…for what it is worth. Hard Money is the traditional value of folks who have money and do not want to see it reduced in value thru inflation. These folks are what we call the rich, or more or less rich. Those who want soft money (easy credit) are those who want to Make money and someday join the rich folks’ club of hard money.

Fractional reserve banking creates more credit than a fixed supply of money which Rothbard champions. If fractional reserve banking is outlawed, it is harder to develop/promote/take risks/expand the economy. That is OK from the standpoint of those who have a lot of money.

Now, let me go out on a limb: the Jew Factor. Clearly jews traditionally have lent money at very high interest rates, up to about 40% in the Middle Ages, etc. per E Michael Jones (The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit).

Why do Jews today dominate or control Wall St.? Because banks and lending are age-old professions for Jews (as well as gentiles.)

Is there a Jewish angle to the von Mises Institute and LIbertarians? Of course.

What do they want, as Jews? Clearly Rothbard is singing a johnny-one-note tune, and apparently (?) has little to say about other factors of an economy. Money is his hobby horse. Inflation is his obsession. One could argue that he is just protecting the Old Rich, Jewish or gentile.

One could ask if he is motivated by embarassment of his Jewish cohort for all their manipulations of credit, the opportunities for which are manifest in an unregulated environment of fractional reserve banking.

Also, Rothbard is against a “nationally” based money system, whether it is the Fed, or any other national, as opposed to international structuring. He would oppose an international structure as well. This is all to be found in his closing pages.

The conclusion is inescapable: Rothbard wants a return to Free Banking in which nobody regulates anything, except perhaps requiring that any bank prove it has gold sufficient to cover its obligations.

Thus Internationalism is the ultimate result of his libertarian position. Aside from the instabilities of allowing, say India banks, issuing their own bank-notes and the consequent relative chaos (show me the color of your money…that obtained in our own 19th C. banking experience), the impetus is totally international.

Finally, his animus against inflation is weird. Inflation is Good, as long as it is low inflation. HIs refusal of fractional reserve banking would severely dampen general economic growth.

I am not saying that this is just crank obsession on his part. But I do wonder why Money has gotten to be such a huge concern when there are so many other factors of economic performance.

Are Jews obsessed with money? Yes, they are. Does this invalidate Rothbard’s ideas? Not necessarily. Maybe he actually believed that Jews were going to wreck our system with their reckless control/dominance of Wall St, the Fed, and so on. Fractional Reserve banking must be severely regulated to prevent irrational exuberance, and crazy lending. Did he want to avoid that kind of regulation by insisting on a system that to a large degree controls itself because credit is severely restricted?

Dunno. But for Nationalists to get into the Libertarian position of Internationalism and Globalism-is-Good, is strange. For White Nationalists to do this is even stranger. Joe

here is another odd example of Rothbard’s reasoning. I suppose I now qualify as someone who is requesting some Abstracting ability, and Rothbard seems to think that savages got it right here. p 52

“A crucial problem for government as legalized counterfeiter
and issuer of paper money is that, at first, no one will be found to
take it in exchange. If the kings want to print money in order to
build pyramids, for example, there will at first be few or no pyra-
mid contractors willing to accept these curious-looking pieces of
paper. They will want thereal thing: gold or silver. To this day,
“primitive tribes” will not accept paper money, even with their
alleged sovereign’s face printed on it with elaborate decoration.
Healthily skeptical, they demand “real” money in the form of
gold or silver. It takes centuries of propaganda and cultivated
trust for these suspicions to fade away.”

I will resist the urge to savage Rothbard here. Indeed our minds to indeed play tricks on us, like Zeno’s arrow that never quite gets to its target. Or, Zen’s one hand clapping.

“What happens when $50 billion of new money is injected into the
economy? After all the adjustments are made, we find that prices
have risen (or PPM fallen) to 0B. In short, although more con-
sumer goods or capital goods will increase the general standard of
living, all that an increase in M accomplishes is to dilute the pur-
chasing power of each dollar. One hundred fifty billion dollars is
no better at performing monetary functions than $100 billion. No
overall social benefit has been accomplished by increasing the
money supply by $50 billion; all that has happened is the dilution
of the purchasing power of each of the $100 billion. The increase
of the money supply was socially useless; any M is as good at per-
forming monetary functions as any other.”

Rothbard contradicts himself. He says that “…more consumer or capital goods will increase the general standard of living ” but then says that the increase of money was “socially useless.”

Of course, he would respond that since the money supply has been inflated, that the purchasing power of the dollar has been reduced. Nevertheless, somebody has to buy all the new widgets, or markets won’t clear and there will have been a massive mal-investment, and really a crisis would appear.
HIs logic does not make sense to me. If more goods and services the society has been provided with social goods, regardless of the money supply, assuming that there is enough money (at any “value”) to pay for them.

This why we need an expanding money supply even while it encourages some inflation. Inflation, to repeat, if it can be held to about 2 to 3 per cent, is good: this avoids deflation, already described as very dangerous.

Rothbard is correct that the size of the money supply makes no difference if you have a static system. Prices can fall in accord with the absolutely non-changeable amount of total money, if more goods and services are produced.

However, more goods and services in the real world do not appear if there is not a lot of credit and its cousin, fractional reserve banking. ( I agree that the fraction should be much higher than that which has been normal for some time. I leave it to sober economist to figure that out…it is probably about 5 to one, and not 10 to one, or 300 to one like the wizards of Wall St. have got used to lately.)

Rothbard seems to have a non-dynamic model for his thinking, a closed system. Now, so far, I have not seen an examination of fundamentals beyond money/banking, but clearly money is not the only problematic.

“To put it another way: a continuing, sustained inflation—that
is, a persistent rise in overall prices—can either be the result of a
persistent, continuing fall in the supply of most or all goods and
services, orof a continuing rise in the supply of money. Since we
knowthat in today’s world the supply of most goods and services
rises rather than falls each year, and since we know, also, that the
money supply keeps rising substantially every year, then it should
be crystal clear that increases in the supply of money, notany sort
of problems from the supply side, are the fundamental cause of
our chronic and accelerating problem of inflation. Despite the
currently fashionable supply-side economists, inflation is a
demand-side (more specifically monetary or money supply)
rather than a supply-side problem. Prices are continually being
pulled up by increases in the quantity of money and hence of the
monetary demand for products.”

Now, be gentle with me..since you know I am a virgin.

This account does not take into consideration: increases in productivity which are or should be expressed in higher wages and thus more money (something that is backasswards today as worker productivity has soared but wages are only capturing maybe 10 or 20% of that increased productivity.)

Nor does it take into account the contending players , workers, business, professional classes, who vie for larger slices of the pie and thus raise prices or make more wage demands..

Somehow, in the first place, more money has to be put into circulation just to accomodate population increases, unless of course, deflation lowers prices.

Deflation is not good because it creates a psychological mood of refusal to buy today if the price will be lower next week.

Lastly, for now, technology keeps improving and thus a car today has about 10 times the features, necessary or not, of cars 50 years ago. The price, despite productivity gains, has to increase because of that.

Now these are specific questions that I pose. Please answer them specifically, one by one. J

I just viewed a David Icke you tube piece on, you guessed it…the Fed and fractional reserve banking. It turns out the lizards are at it again.

That said, I am reading the Murray Rothbard book that Trenchant offered. So, I am trying to do due diligence. I assume that this book will be enough to qualify as a fair representation of the LIbertarian economics position.

Meanwhile, to repeat, my last post asked for a statement on how Hard Money and non-fractional reserve banking can create enough credit to really get an economy moving.

I also noticed that Rothbard apparently argues that a free market and hard money, etc. will NOT prevent crises, but that it will limit them and allow for “clearing” of the market, and thus restore the capitalist machine to the proper rpm, like an engine that has a 16 year-old kid at the throttle and is punished rather quickly for reving the engine too high…he gets his foot cut off, not that I am agin that.

The theory here is not bad, but it is apparent that the boom and bust cycle is not prevented, just kept to short intensity and sort duration. That is a not-bad argument. And, yes, the Keynesian argument DOES try to prevent the busts and the irrational exhuberance. That too is a good thing. The issue then is which works better. Clearly, the capitalist machine is a manic-depressive wild beast and the libertarian position is one of punishing it when it gets too manic (short sharp jabs to the midsection) while the Keynesians want to use medications, which , like most meds, are of limited effectiveness.

@Trenchant: first of all, the NYT is losing money and the primary intentions of the Times is politics, not profit. AS for the rest of your analysis, it would take a full blown effort to try to deal with it. Every sentence begs for discussion. I can only summarily say, and it is not a fine argument, that economists disagree about this material.

The Great Depression happened. We know that. But to say, that it was because of fractional reserve banking is a very large claim.

How can an economy grow if credit is not extended to enterprises? What is the source of credit if banks cannot , in effect, make money by fractional reserve lending? How can the money supply grow to service an expanding economy? Yes there are crises, but overall, Capitalism has expanded dramatically over the last two hundred years or so, and it has been driven in large part by credit. How can credit be expanded to finance Growth, if fractional reserve banking is disallowed?

@Trenchant: I do think draining the swamp helps. A lot. But I see these as clever alligators capable of creating new types of swamps. Creatures with a gift for gaming all kinds of systems. So, I just want to caution that there is no one swamp that once drained, will rid us of our alligator problem.

@Curmudgeon: I don’t mean to imply that criminality is all genetic – certainly upbringing is important. And certainly life’s conditions play a role. But I do believe there is such a thing as a criminal mentality. This is a person who characteristically resorts to crime, as opposed to someone who acts out of some temporary desperation.

And I do think the evidence shows there is a pretty big genetic component to those we call habitual criminals and sociopaths. Some people really do seem to be born bad, so I don’t think I would agree that genetics plays such a small role.

Jewish behavior, from what I can tell from the evidence, seems to be a combination of genes and culture, and it is always hard to tease those two apart and weigh them properly. But I believe that MacDonald’s work strongly suggests a genetic basis for much of Jewish behavior.

@Jason Speaks: Re crime and criminals.
There are but a small percentage of people who are born as criminals through genetic properties or psychiatric conditions. Criminality is learned, whether through he Talmud or lack of moral instruction. Children will take things because they are attracted to them. If they do not learn that taking things that don’t belong to them, is theft, they will continue to take things.
A number of years ago, I heard a speaker from an American university addressing the Toronto Stock Exchange. He contended that the increase in crime rates had a direct correlation to the increase in crime rates in the US. Why? Higher interest rates usually meant more unemployed. More unemployed meant more people being angry at the economic system.

Do they have a choice? Sure. But the choice today’s financial system offers is akin to “we are going to cut off one of your arms, which will it be.”

@Joe Webb: Re the published article.
GDPs, efficiencies, productivity and all the other doublespeak of economics can’t get away from a simple fact: too much money, in too few hands, creates a sluggish economy. If you want an efficient economy, it is one in which everyone can fully participate.
As for private vs public investment, a dollar is a dollar, irrespective of its origin. The infrastructure of the US and other Western countries is by public investment. Goods would not move on Interstate Highways without public investment. Your furniture could not be easily moved into your house without public investment. Which airline, when starting up, could have afforded to build an airport? Public investment is, in fact, an enormous subsidy to businesses.
As was shown with Lincoln’s Greenbacks or Hitler’s Labour Treasury Certificates, these things work. C. H. Douglas’s Social Credit theories have been proven correct: as productivity increases year after year, who benefits from that increased productivity is determined essentially by money and banking policy. In other words, credit left in private hands is a drain on the economy.

@Joe Webb:
“What you knuckleheads do not get is that a Euro, a US dollar, a Norwegian kroner, etc, is worth what it will buy. NOTHING ELSE. Nobody in the US or elsewhere, except maybe Cuba, has declared that their monetary unit is worth such and such.”

@Trenchant: So is it your opinion that everything reduces down to economics, and specifically banking policy in this case? My position on Jewish behavior is this: It is a function of Jews. Being Jewish is the major causative agent of Jewish behavior.

For me, it is like the old question, what causes crime? Answer? Criminals. People can try and blame every other associated factor in the world (poverty, broken homes, social injustice), but at the end of the day, the biggest cause of crime is the existence of criminals.

There are many variations of the bad (from our standpoint) Jewish behavior we discuss, as well as the way it is empowered (banking, politics, academia, media, psychology, art world, cultural critics, etc.), but the main underlying cause is Jewish behavior which is affected by culture and rooted in genes. That is why I resist the notion that reformation of the banking system is the Holy Grail to saving White Civilization.

@Jason Speaks:
Like I said, look at a chart of the money-supply, going back to 1913. Aside from the ’29-32 dip, it’s a nice upward-sloping curve, with a sharp change in gradient from the 1970’s on. Correlation isn’t causation, but it’s a nice match with the vast increase of Jewish power in the last forty years compared to the previous sixty years. The more inflationary an environment is, the more traders and speculators are favoured over savers and wage-earners.

When the wretcheds combine with our White race traitors and jews to outvote us…Parrott might possibly change his mind.

What’s there to change my mind about? I have been, remain, and will continue to be for complete separation. Nothing I have said has implied otherwise. Furthermore, I have explicitly and directly told you that I’m for full and complete separation.

If some of you want to live around blacks and browns, you do not belong here.

You keep lying about my position. You called me names several times. You made impotent little physical threats against other commenters. You repeat your vulgar racial slurs, cough up your venom, spread your lies, and insist that White Americans will magically awaken to their racial interests and kick out the “Mexers” any day now.

If, as you insist, all that’s necessary is for Whites to realize there’s an IQ and temperament disparity between Blacks and Whites, then we’ve already won—everybody already knows that. Why do they remain paralyzed? Because they don’t want to be hateful. They don’t want to be immoral. They don’t want to be creepy racist assholes. They would really rather live in a White nation among their own, but they’ve been led to believe that ensuring their survival would require thinking and acting like you—and they would rather choke.

@Trenchant: Yes, the pre-Nixon policy was not a real gold standard, but you had mentioned it because of your view that Jewish power had grown since 1971 because of the closing of the gold window, so I was responding to that (and yes I know you believe it started before that, with central banking).

I am sure Jewish power has grown since1971, but its growth was taking place before then. We see Jewish influence and power in many key arenas, which seems to ultimately stem from them being Jews more than anything else – a unique set of ethnic traits.

As for Ron Paul, the man would be 77 if he took office in 2013 – just on that basis alone he doesn’t have a shot. You can already see his argumentative skills have slipped.

@Jason Speaks:
Well, the argument was not whether Jews are involved in the libertarian movement (agreed on that), it was rather on a classical gold standard. Cato doesn’t advocate abolition of the central bank and institution of a gold standard, though it may have contributors who hold those views privately. None of the think-tanks you’ve mentioned militate for the Fed’s disbandment. A pre-Nixon arrangement is not a classical gold standard, by the way.

Rand wasn’t an economist and followed Mises in her views.

The money-centre Jews who have the ear of Washington (not the dissident libertarian Jews) will never give up the Bernanke money-press.

I wouldn’t fret over it though, I give Ron Paul a zero probability in his run for nomination.

@Joe Webb:
If you’re getting your economics from the NYT, I can understand why you’re confused.

“So corporate profits do not drive economic growth — they’re just restless sums of surplus capital, ready to flood speculative markets at home and abroad. In the 1920s, they inflated the stock market bubble, and then caused the Great Crash.”

Let’s just take a look at this piece of gibberish and dissect it. The Ochs-Sulzberger family that owns the NYT produces newspapers to make a profit. What is not reinvested in the business flows to them as shareholders’ dividends. This is the reward for investing, without which it makes no sense to carry on in business. The owners of the NYT have successfully done what their editorials decry, they have saved money, foregoing consumption, to invest and grow their business. I’m not going to get into the “paradox of thrift” nonsense, if you don’t believe the necessity of savings for the your future, I suggest you go on a massive spending spree on consumption goods, and see how rich that makes you.

Addressing the 1920’s bubble: if I buy a particular share, I must go without a hamburger, say. Ergo, the price of the share goes up, and the price of hamburgers is less than it otherwise would be. With a given amount of money, I must choose between the two, either one or the other. In an aggregate scenario now, if everyone chooses to invest more in the sharemarket, they necessarily economize on all other goods and services; the prices of the latter fall, just as surely as the former rises. Now, in the 1920’s the price of commodities was flat, and consumer prices likewise; this was an era where great advances in production were achieved, and prices should have gone down (more goods and services chasing a fixed amount of dollars). That they didn’t, and at the same time prices of equities, property and other financial assets soared, sheds light on the cause of the bubble – the amount of money was increasing. Fractional reserve banking is the main mechanism for increasing the quantity of money; banks continued to grow their loan-books during the 20’s, the cheap money thus created flowing into financial assets until the Fed changed its accommodative monetary policy in ’29 and triggered the crash.

Anyone who has read Gailbraith, Friedman and others on ’29 debacle and has been left unsatisfied by their explanations, as I had been, should read America’s Great Depression and make up their own mind.http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

@Hour Glass: there seems to be a hidden criticism of my remarks about Morality and the way to approach folks,

I always start with a personally warm greeting. When my interlocutor shows some interest in our stuff, I start with the science/logic of the global North/South evolution driven human bio-diversity. This gets their attention. I stay calm, and keep smiling. I let them talk all they want. I continue the science based remarks…like IQ and temperments, which people usually quickly understand…being White and all.

I do not talk about morality. I talk about ethnic group competition. They get that. I talk about Whites not being allowed to pursue their ethnic interests, and so on and so forth. When the thing progresses toward…What to do? I talk about Separation. I am usually successful in getting folks to warm to our White racialist stuff.

If some of you think this approach is amoral, it is. It is biological and scientific. Our morality must work for us. Matt Parrott’s remark that most Black folks are law-abiding…I gulped. Law abiding…like welfare laws…the fact that about one-third of black males will be in trouble with the law, their general bad behavior, illegitimacy headed for 80%., disgusting sexual behavior, their corruption of our youth (with JewTV, etc)..etc. Right , most Blacks are law-abiding, if that means that over 50% are law-abiding. That might be true enough, but then these law abiding Blacks vote abut 92% or whatever it was for Obongo. When the wretcheds combine with our White race traitors and jews to outvote us…Parrott might possibly change his mind.
Whites have spent trillions over the last 50 years on the low-lifes….and then we are supposed to respect the “law-abiding” parasites? Right. Sign me up.

Amazing stuff from our “middle”. We don’t need a middle, we need coherence, and neither right, left , or middle. We need a nationalist position that compromises only on tactics, not the goals. If some of you want to live around blacks and browns, you do not belong here. J

@TabuLa Raza: Maybe you do not understand. When you say that economic arguments that are not to your liking, are “fantasy”…well you might consider developing the ‘fantasy’ to expose its irrational elements, point by point. This would be scholarly, or at least, rational.

Then someone could consider the arguments presented by both , or other sides, and the debate could be forwarded. Maybe you have not thought of this. J

@TabuLa Raza: blank slate…what does that mean anyway in the context of genetically organized folks?

I said, “no dissing without an argument.” I have always presented an argument but have gotten next to none. So, go ahead into ad hominem, but please present an argument.

If you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Let’s see , I don’t think I started it, but I intend to finish it.

Speaking of blank slate, let us wipe the slate clean and start over. You give me an argument, and then I will give you an argument and we can proceed like gentlemen. I could go thru the ad hominems directed at me, but I won’t.
J

@Trenchant: I’m not going to list every Jew that currently or historically supported the gold standard, but it goes way beyond 3 o 4 people.
Look at the Cato Institute: Most of the people connected with it are advocates of libertarianism and severely limiting government in banking and finance, correct? Well, David Boas, an executive VP at Cato and public spokesmen is Jewish, and the Chairman of the Board of Cato, Robert Levy is Jewish. There. are many Jewish intellectuals at Cato, such as Ilya Shapiro.

Of course, almost every Jew in the Objectivist movement supported the gold standard, as do all the people at the Ayn Rand Institute, such as Yaron Brook. I am sure Jewish guys like Jonathon Hoeing that appear on Fox Business all the time support libertarian solutions. The same is true for John Stossel. Of course, there is Murray Rothbard. We have the Jewish founder of Reason magazine, Lanny Friedlander; the libertarian Jewish philosopher and economist Robert Nozick; and the head of JDL Irv Rubin, who was a radical and a libertarian.

There are several high ranking members of the Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institute that are Jewish, and while they don’t embrace libertarianism, they would be very friendly to taking us back to pre-Nixon policy. What about Gary Becker, Jewish economist that won the Nobel Prize – he is considered a libertarian.

There are all kinds of random people, such as Aaron Russo, Jewish Hollywood guy that almost got the Libertarian nomination for president in 2004.

Certainly, majority of Jewish activists do not militate for the gold standard, but neither do the majority of non-Jewish either. If you polled economists about who was open to it, it would be interesting to see how it broke down on ethnicity. Certainly almost all modern economists are against it, but I don’t know that the animus towards it is any weaker among Gentiles.

So, as I look around those organizations and movements that advocate for libertarianism, a gold standard or even getting rid of central banking, I seem to find a number of Jews in all of them. It is not a Jewish movement to be sure! But to claim that only Mises wanted a gold standard doesn’t seem to match up with the facts.

@Trenchant: You really think the heart and soul of Jewish power is control of the banking system and central banking, and that if we removed government from banking entirely, that would be the end of malicious Jewish influence in the world?

As just a couple counterexamples, Frank Boas was dominant and on the verge of wiping out all opposition in anthropology by 1910-1920. The Frankfurt School was up and running by the 1920s. These movements laid the foundation for undermining Western Civilization long before Nixon closed the gold window. Arguably, these intellectual movements have had far more impact on the course of the West than the particulars of our financial system.

In addition, Hollywood was totally under Jewish dominion long before even FDR got in office, much less Nixon. In fact, they controlled it from the beginning. And no later than the 1950s, television was basically a Jewish reserve (especially behind the scenes).

There are extraordinary examples of Jewish power in the world before Nixon close gold window, as I am sure you are well aware, so I am not sure why you seem to make this (or fractional reserve banking, or central banking, etc.) the SINGLE issue with which we need be concerned. Isn’t Jewish predominance in banking a symptom of deeper Jewish traits?

All I am saying is that the our problems with Jewish influence is broader than economics or central banking. You don’t disagree with that do you?

btw, with regard to Matt Parrott’s leftish contempt of “materialism” for 80% of our white folks who are barely making ends meet…the above piece also shows the silliness of such a view.

I am also reminded of Alan Watts’ remark: I want to make you a REAL materialist, look, really look, at the objects around you. I don’t want to stink this up with zen posturing, but, Look at your toaster and reflect on the white genius that invented it and the myriad of useful objects around you. Then, go outside and Look at Nature. Etc.

Then one other thing with regard to Mallon’s salutation to me a while back: “Listen Bud.” Good thing Mallon is protected by distance. Otherwise he would unwillingly assume the prone position and come to a while later.

Or, to put it another way, another ungentlemanly bully. I have always taken care of bullies, starting in the 4th grade. There are lots of WN guys out there who really should be redirected to boot camp , etc.

AS an economic historian who has been studying American capitalism for 35 years, I’m going to let you in on the best-kept secret of the last century: private investment — that is, using business profits to increase productivity and output — doesn’t actually drive economic growth. Consumer debt and government spending do. Private investment isn’t even necessary to promote growth.
Related in Opinion

More on the Economy »
This is, to put it mildly, a controversial claim. Economists will tell you that private business investment causes growth because it pays for the new plant or equipment that creates jobs, improves labor productivity and increases workers’ incomes. As a result, you’ll hear politicians insisting that more incentives for private investors — lower taxes on corporate profits — will lead to faster and better-balanced growth.

The general public seems to agree. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll in May, a majority of Americans believe that increased corporate taxes “would discourage American companies from creating jobs.”

But history shows that this is wrong.

Between 1900 and 2000, real gross domestic product per capita (the output of goods and services per person) grew more than 600 percent. Meanwhile, net business investment declined 70 percent as a share of G.D.P. What’s more, in 1900 almost all investment came from the private sector — from companies, not from government — whereas in 2000, most investment was either from government spending (out of tax revenues) or “residential investment,” which means consumer spending on housing, rather than business expenditure on plants, equipment and labor.

In other words, over the course of the last century, net business investment atrophied while G.D.P. per capita increased spectacularly. And the source of that growth? Increased consumer spending, coupled with and amplified by government outlays.

The architects of the Reagan revolution tried to reverse these trends as a cure for the stagflation of the 1970s, but couldn’t. In fact, private or business investment kept declining in the ’80s and after. Peter G. Peterson, a former commerce secretary, complained that real growth after 1982 — after President Ronald Reagan cut corporate tax rates — coincided with “by far the weakest net investment effort in our postwar history.”

President George W. Bush’s tax cuts had similar effects between 2001 and 2007: real growth in the absence of new investment. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, retained corporate earnings that remain uninvested are now close to 8 percent of G.D.P., a staggering sum in view of the unemployment crisis we face.

So corporate profits do not drive economic growth — they’re just restless sums of surplus capital, ready to flood speculative markets at home and abroad. In the 1920s, they inflated the stock market bubble, and then caused the Great Crash. Since the Reagan revolution, these superfluous profits have fed corporate mergers and takeovers, driven the dot-com craze, financed the “shadow banking” system of hedge funds and securitized investment vehicles, fueled monetary meltdowns in every hemisphere and inflated the housing bubble.

Why, then, do so many Americans support cutting taxes on corporate profits while insisting that thrift is the cure for what ails the rest of us, as individuals and a nation? Why have the 99 percent looked to the 1 percent for leadership when it comes to our economic future?

A big part of the problem is that we doubt the moral worth of consumer culture. Like the abstemious ant who scolds the feckless grasshopper as winter approaches, we think that saving is the right thing to do. Even as we shop with abandon, we feel that if only we could contain our unruly desires, we’d be committing ourselves to a better future. But we’re wrong.

Consumer spending is not only the key to economic recovery in the short term; it’s also necessary for balanced growth in the long term. If our goal is to repair our damaged economy, we should bank on consumer culture — and that entails a redistribution of income away from profits toward wages, enabled by tax policy and enforced by government spending. (The increased trade deficit that might result should not deter us, since a large portion of manufactured imports come from American-owned multinational corporations that operate overseas.)

We don’t need the traders and the C.E.O.’s and the analysts — the 1 percent — to collect and manage our savings. Instead, we consumers need to save less and spend more in the name of a better future. We don’t need to silence the ant, but we’d better start listening to the grasshopper.

James Livingston, a professor of history at Rutgers, is the author of “Against Thrift: Why Consumer Culture Is Good for the Economy, the Environment and Your Soul.”

@Trenchant: my cartoon version is just a brief abstract. Again, you fail to offer an argument. That is about the way you guys “think.”

Btw, in today’s Jew York Times, there is an opinion piece on exactly my point about consumer spending driving the economy, not investment (in the first place).

It contains an argument that examines the very long term of economic history in the US.

Also in today’s Times, front page, is a report on a public opinion poll that show how deep is the pessimism of our folks.

Also, interesting in the economics article is that most folks still believe more in leaving it to the rich folks/Capital to solve our problems. That is the legacy of worship of free market that afflicts ordinary folks. Of course, they are not that bright. You guys find yourselves in that company….funny.

that is very well said. and you can say it without negating the obvious truth that while a majority of such individuals may be fine and decent persons, they may also be a part of a group that is deeply adverse to us. such as blacks who are as a group adverse to whites; or jews who are “enemies of all mankind” as they are called in the letter to Titus. That group-reality can be perfectly consistent with the individual reality that runs contrary. Its hard to grasp but once you do it makes life a lot simpler and easier to understand.

@ Joe Webb. Naturally a dollar is what a dollar buys. That’s why it’s called fiat (Latin: that it be done). You are forced to accept USD in settlement of debts, and pay taxes in same. Now do you really think that people would accept those bits of green without the force of law behind them?

@Jason Speaks: Greenspan wrote an essay praising it, and then spent the rest of his career doing the exact opposite. Schiff junior and senior promote it; the exception proves the rule.

The twentieth century is the Jewish century. Of course Jews have always had very wealthy banking dynasties, but the money was not sufficient to subvert all social institutions, as is today. Not surprisingly, the twentieth century is also the century of the nation-state.

The Bryant cross of gold has nothing to do with Jews, I’d refer you Ron Paul’s The Case for Gold, p.111 onwards. (http://goo.gl/3S8Y5) It’s a warning that bimetallism, in the sense of government-fixed exchange rates between metals, is unworkable.

Notwithstanding the flawed bimetallism and fractional reserve banking, the monetary framework of the nineteenth century was far sounder than today’s. And the very high real growth rates in the US economy through both inflation and deflation episodes bear witness to that.

I’m not hung up on a gold standard; my preferred position is that there be no government involvement in money whatsoever, only that integrity of weights and measures be upheld.

@Trenchant: Missed your question earlier. My claim is that people have made this accusation against Jews in the past, not that it is true. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I wrote:

some of the older conspiracy theories used to posit that Jews wanted us on a gold standard so they could control us via gold

I was saying that in the past, people have accused Jews of pushing for a gold standard (and still do). This site is an example (never heard of this site, I don’t vouch for it, I suspect it is off base, but it is proof that people do accuse Jews of promoting a gold standard).

Beyond that, as far back as 1896 William Jennings Bryan was fighting for bimetalism and used the imagery of crucifixion to oppose the gold standard as a thinly veiled anti-Semitic reference. There was a populist movement at the time that took up the cause fighting the supposedly Jewish demand for a gold standard:

I do think the fact that prominent people have accused both the gold standard and it’s opposite (fiat currency schemes) of promoting Jewish is instructive. You are asserting with great certitude that if we had a gold standard, that by itself would minimize Jewish power. Yet, there have been times when men argued the exact opposite.

Along those lines, didn’t the Rothschild family and other Jewish dynasties amass their fortunes and incredible power at a time when the gold standard prevailed in most of Europe and the US?

You asked the names of Jews who argue for a gold standard in the modern age. I assume you mean non-bankers? There are Jews that advocate for a gold standard – Rand, Greenspan in his early days, Peter Schiff, Irwin Schiff, etc. But very few Jews in general push for it, but of course, very few of any people do.

I’m a fan of the gold standard, at least in some form, but I don’t think it can be shown to be a nail in the coffin of Jewish power. And as far as the existential crisis that the White race faces, I don’t think it can be solved with solely economic measures.

@Trenchant: i do not know that central banks are increasing their gold supply. It would most likely be a secret in the first place. What is your source? Second, so what? Central banks have to deal with the real world, and the real world is full of buggy gold bugs.

Fiat Currency is such a stupid formulation in the first place. I have a couple 50 peso notes left over from a trip to Cuba 11 years ago. The probable Jew, Fidel Castro, Declared the Cuban peso to be worth a US dollar, or something close…absurd.

What you knuckleheads do not get is that a Euro, a US dollar, a Norwegian kroner, etc, is worth what it will buy. NOTHING ELSE. Nobody in the US or elsewhere, except maybe Cuba, has declared that their monetary unit is worth such and such. The world market determines what a currency is worth, not some dictator. all the gold in Fort Knox, does not make a dollar worth anything. A dollar is worth what it will buy.

If the gov’t had any brains, it would dump all of its gold to pay down the deficit and laugh as the gold bugs run like cockroaches for shelter.

@3D: Hegel’s Dialectic??? My god. you guys sound like Marxists and Philosophers. More of the same kind of Abstraction Obsessed stuff of Matt Parrott. I thought we were Darwinians. There is no dialectic in Darwin. More things in heaven and on Earth than are dreampt in Philosophy, Universal Particularism, Useless Mullins, Ayn Rand, Rothbard, and the all the Jews from the von Mises Institute.

@Trenchant: here is econ 101 for you all. Printing money goes on the books as deficit, that is, those large editions that we have been talking about. The monetary theory is that when Good Times return and the economy starts to heat up, money is withdrawn from circulation, the deficit is paid down, and the economy is brought back to “normal.” Normal means 2 or 3 % inflation, which is consistent with avoiding deflation, which is a disaster. This is the theory. I wonder if any of you guys who love Ron Paul and the Gold Bugs understand the theory, never mind the empirical reality. If you reject the theory, I would like to hear your argument.

Now, the empirical reality of the last few years is that, yes, the deficit and expansion of the money supply has become a big problem. The monetary policy is not working very well. Neither is fiscal policy (gov’t spending), mostly because this spending has not been on things that work. One thing that does not work is spending on the poor and blacks, mexers, etc. for schooling, etc.

I never said that these tools were perfect or that they would even work given our present problems. Our present problems are beyond the ability of fiscal and monetary policies to solve. And , as I have stated before, the central problem is consume spending, which is very weak, because Capital has taken the lion’s share, or more than the proper lion’s share, of national income.

You guys who perseverate on your Fed and fractional banking obsessions, are just like the Repugnicans, or , the libertarian wing of same.

@Jason Speaks:
I’m still eager to find out which Jews were baying for a classical gold standard. If you believe that Jews are thick on the ground in banking, and that banking with a redeemable currency is limited by the ever-present risk of the bank-run, then why would they argue for this limitation against their own interests?

@3D: This kind of thinking is Utopian. Blacks , left to themselves, will be Africa. Little Africa in the US, like a separate state, say, in the South somewhere. Of course, if the top 10% of blacks who are more or less smart enough, and more or less have their savagery under contol, would refuse to resegregate knowing full well of the anarchy to come. They would demand to stay with Whites, or, move to Europe, which, by that time would probably refuse them. Some kind of profound die-off, or civil-war that kills off the truly bad niggers, might set an example and scare/persuade the rest to resume a subaltern status with Whites. This would be a true Return to the ante-bellum (right term?) which seems pretty unlikely.

I recall an interview with a @ a 12 year old black boy who when asked what he thought would happen if there were not any Whites around, immediately said, “we’d be in big trouble.”

Africa is in chaos, Arab lands are going into chaos, Europe’s right wing parties are growing,,,today’s news has the Swiss People’s Party taking “the lead” in national elections.

Sometimes I wonder if some of our folks realize how fast politics are moving toward greater and greater racial conflict and liberal chaos. The Liberal Order is in crisis and some of us are libertarians….unbelievable but true.

They think the Fed and fractional reserve banking is the problem. Truly stuck in some kind of tarpit with Useless Mullins, Ron Paul, and various Tea Partiers yammering on about The Constitution. j

There will ultimately be no resolution to the Blacks and the Mexers. Get used to it. I also wonder how many of the folks that I perceive as still liberal/soft, own firearms.

@Joe Webb: I’m shocked! Seriously, though, economics as a discipline went off the rails from the thirties on. Now it’s been mathematized so that laypersons can’t see what crap the underlying premises are. Gibberish, the better to intimidate people of good faith asking legitimate questions.

@3D: Useless Mullins is a snare. But it is useless to talk sense to some of you folks. I once had the experience of hearing Useless speak: a compleat fool and egomaniac. Of course, he was old at the time and maybe he made a little more sense when he was young. If you have to read this stuff, at least skip Useless and read Rothbard.

The British government has allocated nearly one billion dollars for the security of the event – more than 10% of Olympics total budget. However, the Israel-Firster government of David Cameron was not satisfied with the capability of UK’s own secret service (MI5) and invited Israeli Mossad to train MI5 operatives. Israeli daily, YNet had reported on May 12, 2011 that Mossad officials participated in a security drill at London’s Olympics park. The drill stimulated a scenario based on 1972 Munich Olympics, where atheletes were held hostages by (Palestinian) terrorists. The Munich hostage-taking was Mossad’s false flag operation to pit the West against Palestinians…..

@3D:
3D that’s a telling quote indeed. In summation, I think its pretty sad that academia’s Liberal Arts discipline is nothing more than an indoctrination center producing immature propagandists ignorant of their own subversive role against the innocent White youth of America. Pretty sad that “Creature from Jekyll Island” reversed 7 years of indoctrination in less than 2 days.

@ Matt Parrott 10/23/11 2:17 pm: The “superior alternative…of heritage and identity where whites and blacks are granted autonomy and sovereignty within their separate communities”, is precisely the social order for blacks that Booker T. Washington was trying to build with his Tuskegee Institute. Washington’s efforts, and those of Marcus Garvey-who bought a steamship line to repatriate blacks to a homeland in africa- were undermined, and finally wrecked by Jews who had a better idea: INTIGRATION! The “National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People” (NAACP), was organized by International Jewery for exactly this purpose: Garvey was wrecked morally and intellectually by a conspiring Jewess, and wrecked financially by her fellow travelers. Washington could not be gotten to morally-he was an upright, just, and disciplined man, a true Hero- so he was wrecked by a combination of highly publicized innuendo, and slanderous libel. Once those two “Schwarzes” were gotten out of the way, the Jews groomed and elevated their proto Martin Luther King Junior; W.E.B. Dubois, and gave him an agenda of confrontation, and demand for social justice that paved the way for the enabling, crippling socialism that bedevils blacks today. The bogus “Civil Rights Movement” was a Jewish construct a hundred years in the making. This topic, and many more regarding Jewish manipulations in the American South are ably treated by E. Michael Jones in his “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit And It’s Impact On World History.” If you can find a copy of Booker T. Washington’s autobiography “Up From Slavery”, it is a treasure. Washington was truly a great man.

@ Hourglass 10/25/11 11:53 am: If you take up the invitation to read or re-read my comments on Kevin Macdonalds “Jews And The Occupy Wall Street Protests” thread, there is one other there, that I would like to point out: Sanjay 10/15/11 6:15 pm; a quote by Judeo Marxist Baruch Levey. This quote is a perfect description of the Hegelian Dialectic (Thesis, Antithesis, -through conflict- to final Synthesis) in operation. The Hegelian Dialectic shaped the entire 20th century, and so far has not abated in the 21st. If I might offer one more suggestion: Copy the quote of Baruch Levey, and paste it on the inside cover of both “Creature” and “Secrets”. Memorize it, it will serve you well. I can recommend to you a book that deals rather extensively with Hegel, his Dialectic, and it’s historical implications. You will see that the dialectic and banking are twin issues, and should not be seen as things apart. I have a list of names pasted in my copy of “Creature” that you might be interested in as well.

@Hour Glass: Do you think truth can actually be obtained through secondary sources

This is a great question. There are so many theories and claims made on the internet (and elsewhere) that have flimsy support, we all have to be careful. When the citation for an especially strong claim is a website that is obviously sensational in nature, it does not inspire confidence (I’ve had this happen when friends send me emails making incredible claims about this or that).

@ Hourglass 10/25/11 11:53 am: Most of my comments on this thread, and many I posted at Keven Macdonald’s article of 10/15/11: “Jews and the Occupy Wall Street protests, etc. , relate to the subject of money, banking and the sovereignty issue. These statements are as concise as I could make them. I invite you to read, or re-read them.

@ Hourglass 10/25/11 11:53 am: You could not do better for a firm grounding in the subject of money and banking than “The Creature From Jekyl Island.” The original research, done at the Library Of Congress was first published in 1948, or 1950, under the title “Secrets of the Federal Reserve”, by Eustace Mullins. In my estimation, this is the most important book of history written in twentieth century America. Google: Eustace Mullins-Ezra Pound. Read everything you can about the relationship between these two men, and how, and why the book “Secrets Of The Federal Reserve” came to be researched, and written. It is a fascinating story, and essential history. I had previously read “Secrets” when “Creature”, by G. Edward Griffin was published in 1994. After reading Creature, I found the telephone number of Eustace Mullins and called him. Mullins was nonplused that Griffin had availed himself of the original research results without giving him any credit, but he did not disavow griffin’s book. I asked him about other books on the subject. Mullins said that they had all, to greater or lesser degree, utilized his work without citation to him. He said that most books on the subject were misleading, and a waste of time. There are a thousand answers to every question until you know the truth. Then, there is only one.

So your@Trenchant:
I’m just getting into the economic topic by reading “The Creature from Jekyll Island.” Can you offer some other sources that would bring me up to speed? And who is a trusted authority on this topic from a WN perspective? Ostensibly, everyone is sure that they are truly unsure, especially congress when being lectured by Bernake. Do you think truth can actually be obtained through secondary sources available to common men such as us? (Since none of us can sit in on the Bildeburg and roundtable meetings) It just seems that people at our level get acted upon without any real agency to understand the system and thus capitalize on its trends. Like Bernie Madoff’s line rationalizing his deeds by stating that his victims “would have eventually lost all of their money in the market.” This statement seemingly provides a rare insight into a bigger con-or does it?

One other point, holding (when does holding become “hoarding”?) money is perfectly harmless for the economy. Only Keynesianism blinds you to this obvious fact. If lots of people choose to more hold cash, prices go down across the board. Businesses costs drop as well as their revenues. Wages go down (unless there are laws that impede this), but cost of living does too.

Cash is a survival necessity, for business no less than for individuals. The greater the uncertainty, the thicker your wallet should be.

@Joe Webb:
Central banks around the world are increasing their gold reserves. I suggest that you learn from your enemy and follow the same tactic. The USD is destined to end like the Continental. Stocks ultimately will outperform bonds (another huge bubble), but I wouldn’t be a buyer of equities until much lower levels are touched. The Euro project will fail, and this will see more smart money flee to gold, silver, oil, agricultural commodities, water allocations etc.

True that the Spaniards didn’t have a fiat currency, but then I’d say the fact that they were able to address the Jewish question suggests that their position was relatively better than that of contemporary America.

@Jason Speaks:
“Halil İnalcik suggests that, in the sixteenth century, Marrano Jews fleeing from Iberia introduced the techniques of European capitalism, banking and even the mercantilist concept of state economy to the Ottoman empire.[15] In the sixteenth century, the leading financiers in Istanbul were Greeks and Jews. Many of the Jewish financiers were Marranos who had fled from Iberia during the period leading up to the expulsion of Jews from Spain. Some of these families brought great fortunes with them.[16] The most notable of the Jewish banking families in the sixteenth century Ottoman Empire was the Marrano banking house of Mendes which moved to and settled in Istanbul in 1552, under the protection of Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent.”

OK, this is a cut-and-paste from Wikipedia, but if you have time to research, you’ll see that the fractional-reserved banking is a consistent thread in the historical narrative. Central-banking aggravates frb to the nth degree, of course.

@Trenchant: I’d invite you to put money-supply up on a chart and compare it with Organized Jewish power and see if you don’t see a correlation. Particularly since the link with gold was severed in 1971.

Interesting point, but wasn’t the Jewish hit job on WASP elites pretty much done by 1971? Or at least, the cake was already baked, as they say. However, the corrupt banking system we’ve had has certainly been one of the powerful tools Jews had at their disposal.

But it sure seems like there are examples of Jews rising to power without the aid of a fiat currency. Was there a fiat currency in Spain back in the 15th century? I’m not sure but I don’t think so. And yet Jews came to viewed as a tremendous threat in Spain. Couldn’t we catalog a number of conflicts Jews have had with other ethnic groups that didn’t involve fiat currency?

In fact, some of the older conspiracy theories used to posit that Jews wanted us on a gold standard so they could control us via gold, and that the only way for a nation to break free was to print its own currency.

It just seems to me that while a fiat currency may be useful to Jewish bankers, it is not a necessity for Jewish power to dominate a society, and it certainly doesn’t seem sufficient by itself.

@Trenchant:
Corporations are invested in cash, because unlike you, they are aware that prices have been distorted by TARP, QE2, Twist. When Bernanke stops printing, and Obama spending, prices will reflect reality and investment in more long-term commitments will recommence.

To Joe Webb:
China in its central-planned version prior to the Deng Xiaoping reforms was a miserable place. I imagine you never went there, so don’t know first hand. They’re following the same Keynesian road-map as the West, and their economic debacle is ahead of them as surely as we’re going to be enjoying a double-dip. Don’t worry, Krugman believes the same as you.

@Trenchant: @Trenchant: Now I really must rub it in a bit here. If you say Capital always has some place to invest, how do you explain corporations’ 2 trillion in cash that is sitting at the curb, idling away? The got no good ideas for investment, just like banks got no good ideas for loans, more or less. Idle Capital, idle hands (Labor), and stagnation.

Maybe you don’t actually have the problem of what to do with your extra money. Maybe you don’t have any extra money (because of all that I have been saying about low wages), or maybe you do have some extra money. What have you invested in ? Nothing probably, except maybe gold, the ultimate disinvestment in our collective wealth and Future. Gold is the miser’s retreat. It creates nothing. Now I don’t blame anyone for buying some gold as a hedge…survival of course is excusable.

I have heard the libertarians claim that gold is good because is allocates capital. That is absurd. It allocates nothing.

Of course the stock market has been having a good time the last couple weeks, and that is a good place to invest I guess, although firms still have Their Problem of what to do with the money you give them.

The marxist term of “realization” simply means, did you make any money on your investment? Did you realize a profit? No sales, no profit. No wages, no sales, no investment, no profit. That is all pretty simple.

@Jason Speaks: central banks do not necessarily give us bubbles. Greenspan is a libertarian, and he was the fox set to watch the chicken coop. Never mind that he is part of the jewcabal that runs Wall St. A real central banker, like Volcker, is apparently going to help coop up the jews and their running White dogs..on Wall St. The Fed, as you probably are aware , is working on a set of new rules for banking, etc. The shysters on Wall St. are reported to be lobbying like crazy to stop especially the Volcher rule on proprietary trading , whatever that is, but it boils down to lending money you don’t have. Somebody else’s money , as the cliche goes.

Now, Wall St. may or may not have its butt whipped soon. I doubt it, but most economists and writers in the financial pages, agree that it needs to happen. Finance Capitalism is a total distortion of whatever virtues Capitalism possesses. As I said earlier, it contributes to surplus Capital and a dearth of wages.

The wild beast of capitalism, tamed and directed, pulls like Husky sled dogs. That is good. Finance capitalism is crazy, and we seem to becoming more aware of that. Production capitalism is what we need. A directed economy would secure that goal.

You free market guys have still not addressed the most basic issue…how to get money into the hands of ordianry working people…the real Stimulus.

@Jason Speaks:
I’d invite you to put money-supply up on a chart and compare it with Organized Jewish power and see if you don’t see a correlation. Particularly since the link with gold was severed in 1971.

@thomas mallon: But the world’s population continues to swell. I just don’t think birth control and abortion, which are openly discussed and have been forever, can be said to prove any kind of secret agenda. At one time, elites did talk about population control, but, that is so 1970s -lol. Population control is now considered a bit politically incorrect, because it is the browner populations that are rapidly growing.

So yeah, there have been elites that talked about keeping populations from spiraling out of control. I have heard regular middle class folks say the same thing. But the population of the earth is rising. There were abortions and birth control before 1973 as well.

@Trenchant: China has risen due to gov’t control. Are there problems? Of course, but not because of gov’t control. Capitalism is a wild beast, even when controlled more or less. The argument is thus sustained that the wild beast needs the dog whisperer. That would be nationalist economists who know what and who they are working for…if I may use the expression..The People, or, The White People, without being lynched by you free market true believers.

@Trenchant: so, of course there have been excursions into daffiness. I pointed that out. It is a major problem with Free Market Theory that claims rationality, good information, and so on. This however does not negate fractional reserve banking, it just shows that there are limitations to Free Market Theology. J

@Trenchant: I agree with you that Keynesianism is not the answer. And the fact that 70% of our economy is consumer spending, is one of our problems. I also agree that our banking system should be reformed and I am very sympathetic to free market solutions.

But, the gist of your posts suggest these economic flaws are the most pressing problem we face as Whites, and that if we would just address these issues, all of our problems as White people would fade away.

From what I can see by historical example, White societies are able to function under a variety of systems, from monarchy to dictatorship to Republic. The quality of life varies, but as far as the survival of the White race is concerned, it has existed under many forms of government. And while it is true that central banks have given us bubbles, the reality is, most people are pretty satisfied with the rise in the standard of living over the last 500 years.

Given that the White race faces an existential crisis, is reforming our central banking system really the issue at hand? It makes for a fine academic discussion, but I can’t see that it should be in the top 10 of our things to do to save White people.

@Joe Webb:
“ALL economists agree that the fundamental problem right now is that Consumer Demand is central to a robust economy. 70% of the economy (14 Trillion a year) is consumer spending, which includes spending on a home mortgage.”

Nonsense. This is Keynesian brainwashing. Not all economists think that at all.

@thomas mallon: OK, one question. I hear a lot from those concerned with NWO occult theories that eugenics and population control are a big part of the agenda, usually with references to the infamous Georgia Guidestones that silly-man Ted Turner put up. This book talks about eugenics.

But I can’t find any evidence that there is any eugenics or population control going on, in fact, quite the opposite. Dysgenics is more like it and the world population continues to grow, excepted by some to be 15 billion by end of this century. As I noted earlier, White scientists have saved over one billion lives via the green revolution on agriculture. This doesn’t strike me a sinister.

This book also refers to Francis Galton as a racist. And you seem to say that Francis Bacon, father of the experimental method was a hack paid off by International Finance. I do know that he supposedly had some interest in “occult” issues, but this was the year 1600 after all.

@Lew: You write, “So can I ask what the main evidence for the centrality of an occult role?”

Read The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship by Phillip Collins (amazon) for a scholarly treatment of this question. This will fill in the other side of the story besides International Finance. Other books, Read also the scholarly works of Fr. Denis Fahey which shows how International Finance funded the like of John Dee, Francis Bacon and much of the cryptocracy. Michael Hoffman’s works (Esp Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare) attest to this relationship also. Etc., etc. The Talmudists often employed others to do the dirty work of deconstucting christendom for them.

@Jonathan: OK, you quote Obongo that history is not on my side. Let us leave the grand claims aside and focus on the empirical AND theoretical.

I read the business pages and I wonder if folks here also do so. ALL economists agree that the fundamental problem right now is that Consumer Demand is central to a robust economy. 70% of the economy (14 Trillion a year) is consumer spending, which includes spending on a home mortgage.

Right now, consumer demand is stagnant, anemic, weak. It is thus NOT the national debt, although that contributes. It is NOT fractional reserve banking (which has worked pretty well for O, say at least 500 years in the West).

What it is, in my opinion, is low wages, lost jobs to Globalization, and Capital Flight abroad. Without money in working/middle classes’ wallets, consumer demand falters. It is that simple.

Now, there is another problem that also contributes mightily. There is too much Capital and not enough Wages. There is a “natural” relationship between Capital and Labor/wage. There must be enough wages to purchase what Capital produces. This is a wonderful cycle, as Uncle Karl Marx loved. He also,loved capitalism as an advance over mercantilism and feudalism. ONly, he thought we could do better, and maybe we can… another story which I will come back to.

Today, US (and European??) corporations are awash in cash…two trillion dollars worth of cash. In itself that is amazing. Business is afraid to invest and banks are afraid of lending. Contrary to infantile lefite and rightie notions, the rich as well as corporations, have lost piles of money during the recession. However, the corporation giants Still have piles of money. (cash sitting on the side lines means that one is losing money by not making any.)

Now that that is settled, we get back to the main point: There is too much Capital and too little Wages. Surplus Capital, means that those investment banks, and upper-middle class folks as well, Feel rich and get loose with their money. This leads to speculation, whether in dot coms, housing, or other forms of reckless credit, like credit cards.

The tulip mania grows until the music stops and the greater fool theory collapses. In short, Surplus Capital creates foolish investment while the other half of the equation, Wages, stagnate or shrink. This begins recession-time, or worse.

Theology of the free market dictates that private investors know best. That is simply not true. The market is plagued by irrational exuberance as well as Panic when things get shaky. This is why the LIbertarians like Rothbard (jewish but critical of jewry) are wrong fundamentally. In the good old days before large corporations, a business was owned by people who knew one-another and had a very good chance of knowing what was going on…information theory. Today, information about huge corporations, banks, etc, is soft, spongy. Who knows? The only people who really know something are investment bankers who send their agents out to visit corporations/firms (publicly traded) to find out what the hell is going on. They pour over account books, the specific market conditions, etc.

Then maybe good analysis is had. Maybe not.

This is beside the main point however. The main point is that today, there is far too much Capital for, 1, non- drunken,sober decisions to be made, and , 2, there is not enough money in folks’s pockets to by what is produced.

So, credit was too loose, part of the tulip mania. So now, we got a problem from which it is very hard to escape. The best thing that could happen is for that two trillion dollars idling away in the economic parking space…to be returned, say about half of it, to working Americans to SPEND. Then the other half of it might find its way into investment in America, not China.

All of this requires a Central Planning (! O Rothbard turns in his grave!) or Directed Economy board of nationalist economists who discipline Capital and certify that it is Good for the USA, good for Whites, etc. In the bad old days, General Motors spokesperson (who?…satirized as General Bullmoose somewhere) said that what was good for General Motors was good for the USA. That was true then. Now it is a different story. I know some of you will scream about this, but China and the smart (high IQ) Asians are doing it quite successfully. White Individualism recoils at this collectivist stuff, but it works..call it Capitalism in One Country…echoes of Uncle Joe for those with an historical sense.

What is Good for the USA from an economic perspective is not crystal clear, but it is not unregulated Globalism, and it is not low wages.

The very rich (say, top 3%) do not care about our country. They want a free market world wide to pile up their dough. Jew York Times a week or so ago had a story on inflation adjusted median family income…last 4 years…9.9 % drop! This is does not a robust consumer demand make.

ON top of all of this is the 100 million muds with their average IQ at about 86. They are a drag on the economy. And then the repugnicans want more cheapened labor with the mexers, and the democracks want more mexers for their votes. Neither party has an economic plan that will do any good. Stimulus shock therapy for a half-dead economy could work if that stimulus was purchasing power for ordinary folks, but it isn’t. A lot of the recent stimulus was pouring money down the black hole of Educaiton for the Uneducable.

Giving tax breaks to the rich can only generate more Capital which has little or nothing to invest in. Thus, zero again, or, less than zero. Rothbard and the libertarians are so Abstracted with their Free Market theories…in this regard, it was Adam Smith (I think) who remarked that when off-shore factors got into the mix of Capital and Labor of any particular economic unit, the whole deal was queered.

Then the simplistic and wrong silliness of the Fed and fractional reserve banking obsessives…that stuff enthralls the minds of some of us. too bad.

So please comment and leave the flaming out of it. you can call me an idiot if you want but you are required by Rationality to present an argument to justify your claim that I am an idiot. J

@Trenchant: The subprime thing was a distraction. The real thing that caused the meltdown was the off book Credit Default Swaps and Derivatives, described as: “complex investment vehicles” by Alan Greenspan; “toxic waste” by Warren Buffet; and “illegal” by Chelsea Brookings.
That takes us back to Fed funny money bit and fractional reserve banking. I am supposed to believe that the CDOs and Derivatives have a value of 16 times the worlds GDP.

I defaulted on my $300K mortgage, and owe $290K. The value of my house is $250K. The value of the CDO is more. How much? $500K? $2.5 million? When Argentina defaulted, the value of the “debt” to the US banks/World Bank/IMF was a hell of a lot more than the difference in value of the defaulted mortgages vs the real estate in the US.

The statement occult groups have played a central role in history is a very strong claim. But that I assume you mean fairly recent history only (17th / 18th century forward) and not all of history? If they played a central role, why aren’t more people aware of their role?

I’d say the Scientific Revolution played a central role in history and that Karl Marx’s ideas played a central role. The French Revolution would be another example. Typically when a person, group or event plays a “central role” there is more general awareness of the role than I perceive exists for say the role of Freemasons.

So can I ask what the main evidence for the centrality of an occult role?

I think it’s suspicious that a number of men who helped inflict severe damage on Western civilization were also Freemasons — William Aldrich and Winston Churchill always come to mind for me first — but what does that show other than they subscribed to some weird ideas?

I would imagine the number of anti-White Jewish and White elites who subscribe to conventional religions or who are secular must dwarf the minuscule number involved in occult activity.

@Mickey Meadows: Awww hells no brother, if you got the skillz to be a billionaire we will all be there helping you sip your wine and go through the ladies. I’ll be a flunky for a mere $125k. :). See hoe hiphop effects even me? Maybe we can make it more of Hank Williams Jr vibe.

Some people are itching for a fist fight to settle this race thing once in for all. Like a showdown in a Western. Everything will reach a fever pitch that draws Whites, Mestizos, Blacks and Everyone Else into a giant battle of some kind. But most likely, that isn’t going to happen, at least not in the next 30 years.

This same prediction has been made for 50 years or more. You can go back and find survivalist literature from 1971 that said Some Day Real Soon Now, the Apocalypse is coming. The economy will crash, crime will spike and presto-chango, we are in a race war. Never happened.

In the 90s I heard militia radio guys saying Some Day Real Soon Now, the final battle would be waged between the Feds and the People … and they were getting ready… fat guys in cammo in the woods. Never happened.

There would have to be a hundred steps taken before White guys and Mestizos were wrestling in the street over territory. We would need a real economic collapse that lasted a while (many years). We would also need a population that faced real deprivations. None of that is going to happen (although there could be a long recession that last years and it could lead to low level social strife – but not earth changing stuff). It seems likely that the internet, cable, food and air conditioning will continue to work for the next few decades. That makes street radicalism on a large scale less likely.

I just don’t see any evidence that Some Day Real Soon Now we are about to finally have the long lusted after Battle Royale that will solve all our problems. I’m afraid the methods of bringing about societal change will be rather boring.

so now occult stuff we need to study. Occult is magic. Lordie, Lordie.

I explicitly and directly warned against speculation and superstition in my mentioning of the “occult war” in passing.

Parott says to study it?

I didn’t say to study Kabbala. I said that these occult groups have played a central role in history and should be considered in the full analysis—nothing more. The only reason I brought it up was in response to what I feel are analytical errors by thinking men, such as concluding—rather plausibly—that the consolidation of the money power into the hands of invasive elites is the root cause of our quandary.

@Curmudgeon:
Yes, but only because the state-sponsored entities such as Fannie and Freddie were buying any old paper that the banks originated. The state created a moral hazard, and the banks availed themselves of it.

But the sub-prime meltdown alone is insufficient to explain the extent of the dislocation. For that, the Fed must be held responsible.

@Joe Webb:
Credit and money are different things. Credit is the cost of time. Money is the most acceptable means of exchange.

Credit can exist perfectly well (and has) without money. I give you my peanut now, and you pay me three peanuts two weeks hence. If everybody accepts peanuts as a means of exchange, then peanuts are money.

@Joe Webb:
History is definitely not on your side, credit expansion isn’t the same as creating wealth, which is why our artificial boom periods lacked a solid foundation: the easy money period of the 1920s is what made 1929 possible. The quixotic efforts at taming our inflationary policies aren’t going to amount to anything in the long run.

@Trenchant: “Greenspan, lowering the interest rate close to zero to mitigate the effects of the tech-bubble…”
That was only half of the problem. Competition for housing led to bidding up the price of the property. Mortgages were being given to people who didn’t have jobs and/or people who would not have qualified. Although I have no proof, I suspect many of them were immigrants – legal or otherwise.
My parents’ mortgage in the 1940s was 3.5%. My first house, in the late 1970s was twice that. I sold that house for twice what I paid for it a dozen years later. The population of my city, until the last few years, has had a long period of low population growth and low new areas of tract housing. It has been the non-white immigrant population that has filled the once low cost rentals and low cost housing, which means the poorer locals have to move up to something at the top or over their comfort zone. These are the people that are at greater risk to default.

@Matt Parrott: so now occult stuff we need to study. Occult is magic. Lordie, Lordie.

I know a little about Kabbala. I wrote about a 30 page piece on it a year or so ago. It is jewish insanity, largely sexual, and has had a long history amongst the Orthodox. These nuts still chant their chants and rattle their beads and stick pins in the goyim. So what?

Parott says to study it? How about astrology? how about Religion 101? How about Ancient Aliens seeding planet Earth? How about Thor, and Eternal Return, and reincarnation…how about anything except biology, which is soooo Earthbound!

Also, as a note, I read E Michael Jones’ The Jewish REvolutionary Spirit last year. It is interesting. Beyond doubt the jews were meddling in Protestantism. There was a Christian Kabbala as well. SOO WHAT?

Do people conspire? of course they do. We are conspiring. Are the Jews consulting the Talmud? Of course, I hope they keep on keeping on, that can only help us…magical thinking, voo-doo. Meanwhile political science, history, and biiology are our real tools, not some occult parlor games.

Great article! We have to keep getting the message out there. The usual suspects will scream and howl about it, this we already know, but there will be a small but growing group of people who start to see the jew and his agenda and start to speak to their friends about it. We have to keep the pressure on, and we have to make sure that our message keeps filtering into the everyday world, even if it’s only is “dog whistle” ways.

the folks who are posting about the Fed and “thin air” money are beyond rationality. Credit is extended by banks, fractional reserve banking of course, and it contributes to thick air. No economy runs without credit. Credit is what expands not only the money supply, but general wealth. If you cannot understand that, you ought to join the la Rouchees.

Such intellectual vapidity…amazing, like Parrott and his universal particularisms, and his juvenile and leftish charge against ordinary people that they are Materialistic when the economic wolf is at the door.

And debate? I have pointed out the logical falseness of Parrott’s reasoning. I have sketched the basics of economic and My economic reasoning and nobody can argue against it. They can however diss me with no reasoning. I diss Parrott and show how idiotic is his logic.

No Dissing without Argument should be a rule, but Idiots First prevails on this thread. I am sick of it. Ron Paul suckers, Useless Mullins anti-Fed types, and liberals and milquetoasts. No one has taken a point by piont refutation of my stuff, expecially Parrott. I have demonstated his lack of logic, his other worldly abstractions that bear no resemblance or linkage to an evolutionary and biological argument. Let some actual Thinker demonstrate my errors….

Parrott’s thought… ” grand abstractions” is exactly what we are dying of…looks like some WN ists are still sick with it. Everything we need to know is compassed by biology, including Ideas, most of which are very bad indeed, rooted in emotion, egotism, propaganda (liberal and Jewish) in this case of Parrott and his liberal little league of milquetoast nationalists, and Fear. These milquetoasts fear a robust , racialist, “supremacist”, fighting WN that will create a Myth that destroys LIberalism and its Ideas of “fairness”, Equality, and “humanity.”

There is no Humanity. Humanity is another liberal abstraction. It stinks of dead liberal books, jewish books, leftish books, and effeminate, compassionate men.

I’m processing the concept of occult war, but I wonder if you could give your own definition of “occult” in this context.

The third definition—disclosed only to the initiated—is sufficient. Though, this stuff does get pretty deep. Initiatic organizations with “mysteries” such as Freemasonry, Judaism, the Catholic Church, and assorted secret societies have all competed for power. It’s a difficult subject and it’s certainly easy to get carried away with superstition and speculation, but I do believe the subject has to be explored if one hopes to comprehensively understand the nature of our plight.

@ Trenchant 10/23/11 8:30 pm: The constitution of the United States does not address issues of policy, it protects against human nature. Laws passed subsequent to the Constitution should endeavor to do the same. Any just monitary policy for the people of the United States, would make counterfeiting a capital crime; death by public hanging. Included in the definition of counterfiting would be the “willful expansion of the money supply beyond that required to move goods from producer, to consumer.” If Congress defaults on it’s Constitutional obligation to “guarantee the integrity of money”, the solution is simple; hang the ones that will not comply, and elect new members who will.

@ Trenchant 10/23/11 8:21 pm: You may think that “it’s incredible that anyone believes the market has been unregulated of late.” But I think it should be obvious, (and I think it is) that selective de-regulation (Glass-Segall, anyone?) has done immense damage to the country, while standard elephantine regulation goes about it’s ponderous business of hamstringing the economy in a more quiet way. It would take a ten pound volume to document the SELECTIVE DE-REGULATION that has contributed so much to America’s decline since the Regan era. Anyone remember Ma Bell?

@Curmudgeon:
I don’t disagree with your anti-open-borders position. It’s one thing for individuals to transact for goods and services from foreign nationals in their own country, quite a different thing to host them.

@Curmudgeon:
“In a “free market”, as the supply of housing dries up, the cost goes up. How do people think the housing bubble was created?”

Greenspan, lowering the interest rate close to zero to mitigate the effects of the tech-bubble (his fingerprints on that mania, too) wash-up, presided over an enormous wave of new money, which flowed into long-term projects like housing. Projects not designed to fulfil a genuine need (lots of empties now), but that appeared profitable at the time.

AGW is junk science used to push an agenda. Here’s some decent science for you:

@3D:
Congress is no guarantee of the integrity of money. Why would it not use inflation to impose a hidden tax on its subjects? Where in history has the money-production privilege not been used to the advantage of the monopoly-producer and to the detriment of the money-user? If you had a printing-press, wouldn’t you have a lot of friends?

@Matt Parrott:
“I favor a robust and relatively free market which contains checks on the well-known and well-documented ways that an unregulated capitalist market can become destructive.”

It’s incredible that anyone believes the market has been unregulated of late. The Federal Register in 2007 contained 78 000 pages. And then there are state and local laws. Compliance is a huge cost to the financial industry, and these costs are borne by all.

The business cycle is an by-product of the monetary order alone, ie. fractional reserved banking. Thievery (Jewish or otherwise) produces poverty for the victim but cannot produce economic-wide boom/bust cycles – this being a coordination problem. The solution is competition in monies, not monopoly or oligopoly in money-production and banking. Abolishing legal tender laws would allow the most honest and reliable monies to be selected by consumers, and not by elites.

Morality does not spring solely from the genes. If it did, we wouldn’t be in the spot we are in now. Genes give us some basic instincts, as well as the ability to think through moral issues, but they don’t immediately provide all the answers. Hence, there is a legitimate study of moral abstractions.

Clearly human beings, especially Whites, have an ability to think in terms of abstractions. We are able to override our immediate instincts in order to follow a course of action that we think better serves our interests or is in some other sense, the “correct path”. It’s part of what separates us from other animals. Whites (and North Asians) seem especially capable of thinking beyond the range of the moment, probably because our ancestors had to in order to survive the Ice Age – they had to think at least one year ahead.

So, once you are thinking beyond the immediate concretes and biological impulses, we are already dealing with abstractions. In that sense, mathematics, engineering, and physics are all abstractions. The majority of those subjects are far from obvious or instinctive – which is why they are so hard to learn!

But of course, our abstractions can be wrong and that is our problem, not the existence of abstractions as such. Of course, there are loopy abstractions that people have accepted that got them in trouble, whether in the physical sciences or in the moral realm. The answer is to think through issues and get the right abstractions, I believe.

Beyond that, something like 98% of humans feel a need to be moral, to be accepted as member in good standing with “the group” or the tribe (this is also an evolved need – a panic button goes off when we sense others don’t approve of us – maybe we override it, but the alarm still goes off). This means the issue has to be addressed in order for a movement to be considered legitimate. There are a few sociopaths that don’t seem to care, but they aren’t able to build networks with other people anyway and don’t seem to be interested in the future of their own families, much less something as distant as race.

@Matt Parrott: Thanks for the response. By the way, I do agree that it is dangerous for Whites to import non-Whites, whether as slaves, servants or free labor. In time it will lead to miscegenation.

On the issue of how Southerners felt about their social institutions, I do think most of them felt they were moral for a long period. The fact that a White Southerner today looks around carefully before telling a racist joke does not reflect the norms in place100 years ago. And of course, the institution of slavery itself was not ended by appealing to the moral conscience of the South, it was ended by burning city after city to the ground. It was ended by brute force (no doubt motivated by some moral outrage felt by those in the North but not by moral capitulation in the South). Now, by the 1960s Civil Rights movement, the social and moral climate had change dramatically, given the 100 years that had passed since the end of the Civil War.

The Indian caste system was far more rigorous than the Southern caste system and you see how well that preserved the Aryan racial stock

Yes, even rare occurrences of of miscegenation will eventually doom White stock, given enough time. And I do agree that it is imperative that we build a moral argument for our existence as a people. If a people feel like their system is immoral or illegitimate, in time, someone will find a way to knock it down.

I feel the benefit of your approach will be lost on most people because the masses always need things laid out simply. Maybe I’ve said this before, but it would have saved me alot of time and questions if someone would have given me an outline of WN 101 instead of me having to piece together everything based upon countless books, articles, and websites. The very few resources available to us today are the only reason why any of us are ‘awake’.

@Matt Parrott:Let one “person of color” make the charge of racism against you, and all is lost in your effort to garner support.
I am a union steward in a multi-racial work site and the charge of racism has died from overuse. I could even say that the cry of racism is the cry of the guilty party.

There are a number of assumptions here that are problematic. Things must be viewed with fresh eyes, and issues that are seen as opposition must be seen as opportunities.
* It is pointless using the old Left/Right labels. The problem does not fit neatly into either side of what people believe Left or Right to be.
* The term conservative as a political term is meaningless. It is impossible to figure out what the hell they are trying to conserve.
* The term liberal is used pejoratively. If someone wants good publicly funded education for his/her kids, that makes him/her a liberal. He/she may not want that school filled with non-whites, immigrants or native born. Don’t push them away.
* A number of posts use open-ended labels, such as “suburban whites”. As long as there are 2 of them, the statement is correct but not necessarily accurate.
* Generally speaking, people are naturally conservative in one respect. They like things they know and are comfortable with. They don’t like change for the sake of change, or being put in the situation of choosing the devil they don’t know. Don’t talk in liberal/conservative terms.
* Tirades against non-whites who have come according to the “rules” go nowhere. They have done nothing wrong, and are here to stay. A better argument is to say that the immigration policy is bad for that 3rd world country, as educated ones are needed more at home to help their country advance.
* Foreign aid helps many countries feed populations that their own land can’t support. It encourages those populations to continue with high birth rates.
* Many of the people that are called “Left”, such as trade unionists, are actually conservative. They don’t want their jobs off-shored, they don’t want immigration to suppress their wages by the endless supply of cheap labour, and they don’t like crony capitalism. What these people are looking for is social justice in the way of stable employment, decent wages, health coverage, and decent affordable education for their kids. Argue economic nationalism with these people. Get them on board
* No one wants to speak to mass immigration as inflationary. These people have to live somewhere, and they have to eat. In a “free market”, as the supply of housing dries up, the cost goes up. How do people think the housing bubble was created? The food they buy, is food you can’t buy. After they have become established, they open “ethnic” food markets that sell mostly what you wouldn’t eat. After that it is clothing and small household goods, then onto competition in other areas. These groups always support their own. This allows the myth of immigration “creating” employment. They only hire their own. Get those business owners affected on board.
* Few people want to address the immigration issue from an environmental slant. Don’t piss on the global warming thing of the “lefties” you seem to hate. When robins start showing up at the Arctic Circle, something has to be happening. Human activity creates heat. Even if there were no emissions from motors, they emit heat. The tires on the road emit heat. Every light bulb, stove, refrigerator, hot water tank. and dishwasher emits heat. More people living in North America, irrespective of their place of origin, is bad for the environment. Get those “lefties” on board.
* Foreign aid helps many countries feed populations that their own land can’t support. It encourages those populations to continue with high birth rates. It is ecologically irresponsible.
* Meddling in the internal affairs (on behalf of the banker run military-industrial complex) causes ecological damage when bombs and rockets explode. The refugees that result often end up in white countries. Take the position – don’t arm anybody, and prosecute those that do. After all, we wouldn’t want to be uprooted from our homes, why would we expect others to be? It is traumatic for them to be put in culture shock.
* The myth of Asian commerce is that they developed their industries on their own in an open market. Autos and auto parts could not be traded into Japan. Wages in Japan, before it was collapsed were consistently in the top 5 globally. South Korea, before it was collapsed: had laws forbidding lay-offs in their industries; Hyundai was heavily subsidized and had its own set of laws; and, had trade barriers to develop its internal economy first. Electronics? How many countries use 120v 60hz electricity? Not many in the big scheme of things. Trade rules were changed to allow dumping of products produced in countries where they have no use. That is globalism. Expose it.
* The Tobin tax is not really the answer. At one time, countries had currency controls that limited how much money could leave the country and under what circumstances. Today’s fraudulent global financial systems allow “traders” (read on-line gamblers) to transfer imaginary money, which in some cases is the annual GDP of a small country, at the click of a mouse. THAT is what has to stop. A tax on these transactions, irrespective of how it is used,
will only lead to more manipulation of markets, but with higher profits.

Globalism is the brainchild of the wandering Jew. They are everywhere, and have been for decades. They have been getting their “people” in place forever. They are the ones that have tribal members established within the other countries. Globalism and all of its tentacles can only be defeated by economic, environmental, and cultural nationalism.

@ Matt Parrott 10/23/11 2:29 pm: The central bankers of the world, and their legionary posse of fractional reserve wizards, daily accomplish what the alchemist of old failed to do. They creat money out of thin air, and lend it at intrest. Hoo ha! Chutzpah Voodo. Albert Einstein said that “The most powerful force in the universe is compound interest.” Money creation is the keystone in the occult world conspiracy.

I know you find my essays boring, but I would really appreciate it if you actually read them before reaching conclusions about them. I am not for any kind of integration and am for full and complete sovereignty and separation.

@ matt Parrott 10/23/11-2:29 pm: I am willing to entertain an occult conspiritorial theory of history, but the first paragraph in your link “Freemasonry And The Occult War”, admits that Julius Evola’s proposition of the occult war is lacking in emperical verifyability. Talmudic Judaism’s drive to world domination is guided by occult Kabbalah. According to E. Michael jones in his “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, and It’s Impact on World History” Talmudic Judaism was instrumental in the establishment of Freemasonry in early sixteenth century Elizebethan England. On page 90 Jones writes: “Masonic theology, according to Rabbi Benamozegh, is ‘At root nothing else than…the theology of the Kabbalah.” I will read your links with care, but I must ask, if your sources are not verifiable, how can you build a working theory from them?

The End the Fed ejaculative slogan demonstrates the emotional and anti-intellectual character of its champions. Every country has a central-national bank. Everybody is Keynesian who is not a libertarian . Fiscal and monetary policy Everywhere is used to combat the excesses of the capitalist cycle.

Those advocating ending the Fed are libertarians or free-marketeers (more or less the same) who Believe in the theology of the Free Market. Ideologues All. The Free Market left to itself inflates tulip bulbs to the “value” of a house, phantom stocks prices to fantastic bubbles, speculators frenzied, etc, etc, and thinks that short-term profit motivation can address the long-term issues of a country. Production is the fundamental, not profit.

Today, the intellectual divide is between Dems who want to give money to the Poor, and the Repub who want to give money to the Rich. Pretty dumb.

The economy needs consumer demand. The economy needs long-term direction by an elite of nationalist economists who put country before Economy. White Individualism still plagues WN…. Me first economics. WN individuals are still allergic to collectivism. If we are not an organic collectivity, like Jews, Asians, etc. then we will lose the evolutionary struggle to more sober races who promote their own organic and strategic business and evolutionary strategies. LIbertarians….Fed smashers, Jeffersonain Idealists, Horatio Algers, Babbits, etc. Me First.

Our race is first. If that is not motivating you, you belong anywhere but in WN. J

@Joe Webb: Listen bud, you obviously don’t like Matt Parrott, as is clear from your bitter criticism not only of his “abstraction” but also his allegedly sleep-inducing prose (Not!). That you appear a stranger to Parrott’s balance and fairness, doubtless say far more about you than he. A true thinker does not substitute platform-ideology for historical fairness, nor is he embarrassed by fairness. Rather, he makes a stronger case by acknowledging facts, whatever they are. You remind me of those “supremacists” who, unhindered by evidence, bristle at any mention of nazi crimes or Hitler while only wanting to hear about (undeniable) Jewish-mogul decadence / influence—as if Jewish crimes made Nazis good. Get a grip.

The problem is that supporting adbusters means working for adbusters’ goals not White goals.

Adbusters’ goal is not take money from bankers; their goal is to take money from bankers AND then use it against Whites.

So I don’t see how supporting the adbusters idea is going to work as a demonstration of morality and goodwill for the persuadables. They will write us off as immoral anyway as soon as we say we oppose how they want to use the money.

@Sam Davidson: basically agree. However, the jews, to be accurate , do not rule the world, they rule the US more or less. They also DO rule it in largest part because of their dough…about 60% plus funding for both parties. THey also rule because of liberal sentimentality about the holocaust and Fear of the Jewish purse. etc

When I use the term idiot, I use it to describe college educated, espec philosophy (does a tree falling in the forsest make any noise?) idiots who are riding hobby horses, Grand Abstractions totally unrelated to biology, etc.

We have US pragmatists who are almost as absurd as European National Culturists (Breivik), and demented Left intellectuals who wash the feet of Filth like Derrida. ad nauseum.

THERE ARE NO HUMAN RIGHTS. THERE ARE NO ANIMAL RIGHTS. THERE ARE NO ABSTRACT RIGHTS. We do have laws which express the feelings, beliefs, and folkways of the majority….amongst Whites anyway. Whites have Feelings of sympathy, affiliation, familial and friend love, etc. We are wired to respond to babies, beauty, a smile (which usually indicates safety and welcome) and so on. Anybody who knows about the Law, knows that the law is easily shoved aside when it is in the way of whatever Prejudice of Justice or revenge, or cowardice, is in the minds of the lawyers, judges, and juries.

Burke: I have no universal rights (per 1789). I have my due as an Englishman. That is correct. What is our due is determined by centuries or millennia of evolutionary development which favors, among other things, applying rationality to a situation and, regard for family, tribe, etc. Theft is the fundamental crime. All others being particulars of the “universal.” Theft is regarded as a destroyer of one’s chances to live, prosper, etc. Therefore we feel correctly that it should be punished.

All of this is Feeling, not Abstract Rationality.

The word “Right” could be historically researched to find out who started using it first. For example, Greece and Rome had law, but it would surprize me to find out that the great rationalizers, the Romans, had the word ‘right’, except as a synonym for law, as the outcome of law.

As soon as we started our abstractions about humans, we got into universals. Physical anthrolpology was abolished by the jews in favor of Cultural anthropology, etc. It is all Culture, and all cultures are equal. Equality is the most Fantastic Abstraction…and it took Whites to come up with that one.

Parrott is operating on Universal Equality, or, Universal Difference (particulars) that must be treated as Equal. Presto and mumbo-jumbo, we all have Equal Rights. This is so crazy/stupid/idiotic for a Darwinian to “think” that the only thing that explains it is that Parrott is an idiot, per above, or, a subversive of White Nationalism. He may doing his subversion with the best of Abstract Intentions (to prevent war) or not. However, War is one of the natural/evolutionary/Darwinian conditions of life. War is Good if it advances the interests of a particular tribe. Good for the Jews. What is Good for Whites is bad for jews and the jews know it. What is good for Whites is Bad for Niggers, Mexers, free-loaders in general, and so on.

Only the children of Peace and Love preach Peace…and of course leave it to cops and soldiers to kill when necessary. all the while clucking their effeminate squeaks. Liberals are luvers of Humans, except when it comes to killing racists, (but there again, they would let somebody else do it). They Parrott the platitudes of racial equality and Human Rights, but marry whites, send their kids to White schools….etc.

We are in a war my comrads. Who benefits from the peacenik abstract universalizers like Parrott are our Enemies. War helps advance evolution, assuming that superior races win. Yes, I am a White Supremacist if that means that we are the Best, the Supreme. I am not in favor of lording it over other races. I just think Separation is the best thing for all concerned. Go in peace, you untermenschen, but go. Parrott apparently wants to live with them. Go!, live with them and Improve them!

This is a good, no-nonsense, pragmatic approach to many of the obstacles we face. A good dose of realpolitik, too! Thank you, Mr. Parrott, for your work on this article.
I did cringe a little when you said southpaws were somehow “overlooked as a historically marginalized and victimized identity group” My wife and I always share thoughts on the TOO articles; she is left-handed and is fond of reminding me that only left handed folks use their right mind, etc., ad nauseum. I’m not quite sure how to respond to her claims, moreso as she has offered some scientific basis to it all which quite frankly I have been unable to refute yet. So, if she runs accross your reference to leftys (I am certainly not going to point it out to her) I shall brace myself for another round of southpaw supremecy.

Why is everyone starting to use the term “white advocate” ? I’m a White Nationalist.

I believe that outreach and evangelism works best when one first defines himself as an “advocate” without distracting from that effort with specifics on what the end goal is. I am also a White Nationalist and I am also committed to the 14 words. I do; however, believe that the “White Advocate” term more effectively describes our current role in the contemporary context.

If asked, I readily state what my end goal is. If googled, it’s readily confirmed. But to actually approach people first as a White Nationalist is to lead with the blunt end of the wedge, so to speak. Those are my thoughts, anyway.

The ‘Civil Rights movement’ succeeded because the Federal Government turned against its own people and made them ‘integrate’ at gunpoint. It was not popular among whites.

I would argue that while the simple majority may have been opposed, the South’s indigenous elites who lead action and opinion were cleanly split into two camps: populist reactionaries and CRM visionaries. While FedGov did indeed deploy force, I believe that force was only possible and effective because the segregationists had already forfeited the moral argument.

I may disagree with Parrott sometimes, but he is no idiot. If anything, I give him enough credit to acknowledge that he is possibly the cleverest infiltrator of the movement since Jared Taylor. (Heh heh, kidding.)

Reading Parrot’s statements, I have 3 comments:
1) Why is everyone starting to use the term “white advocate” ? I’m a White Nationalist. My political aim is the realization of the 14 words. It is a political aspiration that has been baptized, literally, in fire and blood. If other people find this too “offensive” then I bid them good riddance.

2) “The Jews don’t rule the world because they’re rich; they’re rich because they rule the world.”

A profoundly true statement if we recognize the subtleties involved in it.

3) “The Civil Rights movement prevailed in the South because the overwhelming majority of Southerners knew and agreed that it was immoral and the institution did not withstand the scrutiny of outgroup critique.”

I disagree. The ‘Civil Rights movement’ succeeded because the Federal Government turned against its own people and made them ‘integrate’ at gunpoint. It was not popular among whites. The result of forced integration was massive whiteflight and self-segregation. It’s only after sixty years of brainwashing and threats that today’s younger generation (which is sadly quite degenerate) has begun to racemix of its own free will.

Look, since those of us under the age of sixty can not remember what actually happened we rely on slanted histories told by academic prostitutes and Jewish media programs. I will try to address these issues in an article at some point since I have already collected many of the relevant notes for it. The nitty-gritty is that whites have consistently opposed race-replacement and “integration” with other races only to be overruled by their own governments.

@George: Thank oyu Goerge. The OWS Controlled Oppositon was organized by a Jewess from Adbsters. ANY “Global” tax would go to benefit the schemes of the Self-Chosen. ANY-ONE pandering to the Non-Whites is only fooling themselves. Ther’e a 200 year, 100% consistent history of What Happens when Blacks are allowed control of White societies. Does any-one on this site need me to state the places and events?

You disparage Thermopylae…that is very weird because it is a Myth that mobolizes our non-rational gut ( genes ) and gets us out to fight, which you also demean.

I did the opposite, using them as an example of Whites transcending their individual interests in a constructive way.

First, you sound like a leftie whining about the “rapacious capitalist machine.” The capitalist machine has improved our material standard of living about 1000 % in the last century.

That’s all well and good, and I’m not anti-capitalism. I favor a robust and relatively free market which contains checks on the well-known and well-documented ways that an unregulated capitalist market can become destructive.

Whites are getting up their blood-lust, and that is Darwinian, Good (Good for Whites…the “morality” of the threatened tribe). The only people to talk about Universal morality are fools, liberals, lefties, and you.

If the White Nationalist movement is integrally incompatible with the construction of a moral argument then I may find it necessary to take my unreadable essays about morality elsewhere. Go do your blood-lust thing, Mr. Webb. Rip your shirt off and deploy your “grown up” tactic of shouting “nigger” and “mexer” at the top of your lungs. HATEFIGHTKILL!

Control of the money creation power was the central question in the run-up to the American Colonial rebellion. […] The soverign money creation power in self intrested, private hands is not AN issue, or A problem. It is THE issue, and THE problem. Without the money creation power residing in Congress, America is not a sovereignty. To put any issue ahead of this one, is to occupy ourselves with tilting at political windmills.

Your analysis fails to account for the occult war underlying the machinations of the elites. America was spearheaded by a vanguard of Masonic mercantile elites. Sure, money was and remains a powerful weapon in these battles but it’s merely that—a weapon.

Money in the hands of America’s Masonic elites results in the Enlightenment-style project we started with. Money in the hands of Jewish elites results in the Jewish Supremacist project we ended up with. The money power did indeed shift from our indigenous mercantile elites to the invasive managerial elites and you’re square on the facts surrounding this very important power shift. But there are deeper reasons why this power shift occurred. Namely, the indigenous elites were subverted, perverted, and inverted to the point where the seismic power shift you speak of was even possible.

Without a robust and powerful elite dedicated to the stewardship of our people, no transition in monetary policy will save us. The good news is that such an elite can be raised up, but that’s facilitated by a more complete understanding of the nature of the occult war.

But isn’t it true that Whites in the South lived very intimately with Blacks for 200+ years, yet had no problem thinking of them as inferior?

The whole thing was more unstable and problematic than both the anti-white revisionists and the neoconfederate romanticists would have you believe. Plenty of effort was expended on keeping the talented tenth from learning how to read. Examples abounded of Black individuals succeeding in one context or another. Some Blacks even owned slaves, a troubling amount of miscegenation was going on—both between the White slaveholders and their slaves and amongst the free Black and White underclass.

The entire charade only went on as long as it did because of financial necessity—a now-obsolete reason. The Civil Rights movement prevailed in the South because the overwhelming majority of Southerners knew and agreed that it was immoral and the institution did not withstand the scrutiny of outgroup critique. Slaveholders and segregationists lost the moral argument by default, and didn’t even bother to argue back.

The Southern reaction to the Civil Rights Movement was a textbook case of how morally repugnant power structures can’t survive without force. All it needed to be destroyed was a battering ram of critique (both of the indigenous Yankee variety and of the invasive Jewish variety) and a handful of well-placed Guardsmen to kick it over after it had been destroyed by ideas.

The typical Southern racialist knows he’s being deviant or he wouldn’t behave as he does: two-faced, shrinking, and retreating. Hes tells his racist jokes and whispers his supremacist sentiments only after darting his eyes to assure he’s out of earshot of his moral superiors. There was no serious effort to make a moral case for slavery or Jim Crow because there’s not one, at least not one that rings true to the majority of thinking and feeling people. Southerners were presented with a moral choice: their privileged but immoral position in the Antebellum Order or their principled sacrifice in the name of Civil Rights. Being Whites, they gravitated towards the sacrifice in pursuit of the abstract ideal over the concrete advantage.

Of course, this moral choice shouldn’t have been framed as such. The opponents of the Civil Rights Movement should have had the vitality and vision to deconstruct that choice and present a superior alternative to both: one of heritage and identity where Blacks and Whites are granted autonomy and sovereignty within their separate communities.

The White South Africans had the foresight to take this approach but didn’t take it consistently enough and didn’t have the resources and demographic advantages that we enjoyed. Now, in the twilight of that nation, the Orania project is finally fully and consistently following that approach—with quantifiable success, perhaps the only quantifiable pro-White success in the world. It may be too little and too late, but it’s a small enclave of White people who confidently make a moral argument for their separation and survival. Had their approach reached its fruition on a national scale, I believe South Africa could have been saved.

The Indian caste system was far more rigorous than the Southern caste system and you see how well that preserved the Aryan racial stock. To further drive home a point, that system was completely destroyed by moral arguments, as well. There have indeed been historical cases where one group held itself as superior to the other but it is always doomed to the steady pressure of populations in close proximity to miscegenate and it is always vulnerable to being destroyed by moral arguments.

To see what an effective “tack” looks like, pay special attention at 10:18. Webb can tell me to “grow up” and be more hateful and amoral, but I would prefer to follow the advice of this here teenage boy.

For a sneak preview of what we have to look forward to if we don’t win, watch the segment immediately after the Orania segment on the sewer people of Bogota.

to Matt Parrot, you admit to being driven by “grand abstractions.” As a true Hoosier, you are drunk on them.

You talk about when war come globally….that we need allies, etc.. What the hell are you talking about?

Just about every sentence you write I find absurd from a White Nationalist perspective, and from simple logic.

You talk about Morality as if it is a Universal sprung from the heads of classic liberals , French Philosophs, and Matt Parrott. There is no universal morality.
Morality comes from the genes and more simply put, from the “common sense” of a Particular group of people.

The different races do not have a common morality. What they do have are biological traits that include tribalism, and rules for group behavior that facilitate the survival of the group, usually at the expense of the individual. That is, the individual surrenders his egoistic drives to the common good of the group. Of course, Whites, in their possessive individualism, their expressive individualism, and, worst, their Universalizing tendencies best illustrated by you in this context, will luv the niggers and the jews , and the mexers , and expect them to subscribe to your eccentric Ideas, or at least go along with the funny ideas of White liberals or temporizers like yourself, to mmaximize their parasitic possibilities.

You disparage Thermopylae…that is very weird because it is a Myth that mobolizes our non-rational gut ( genes ) and gets us out to fight, which you also demean.

Your anemic prose would put any of our 80% of Whites into a torpor and send them back to watch football which at least has the virtue of stirring excitement and fighting spirit.

Your last remarks about my…”On my first read, I thought you were being nonsensical, homebrewing your own private definitions of “liberal” and “conservative”. Then, after thinking about it for a moment, it all made sense: You’re for hating, fighting, and killing everybody in the world who’s a “them”, a supporter of the most egregious excesses of the rapacious capitalist machine in full effect, and a proponent of selfish parochial considerations above all else. You’re a Fox News Republican!.”

This is about as liberal as one can get and still get onto a WN website. First, you sound like a leftie whining about the “rapacious capitalist machine.” The capitalist machine has improved our material standard of living about 1000 % in the last century. we all go sewers, potable water, and wonderful machines that do most of our work for us. Hats off to White guys who figured this all out. This machine is not rapacious, it is rationalizing, efficient, and assorts talent.

IT is however now distorted by finance and globalism. Then you whine about “materialism” when I talk about Consumer Demand being gutted. Maybe you have all the gadgets you need, but as Uncle Karl Marx once stated, there is no end to what we can enjoy materially, and there is nothing wrong with that of course, in the context of non-material well-being. Fact: divorce is most likely to come when material hardship (job loss, etc) occurs.

Your rant about materialism is juvenile.

As for my wanting “hating, fighting and killing! has some truth to it. That is better than your mincing about with your nonsensical ” universal particuarisms” Gawd! As for hating, I do not recommend hating, I recommend sobriety and determination to rid ourselves of parasites and subverters. As for killing, yes, if it comes to that. Meanwhile incentives for Mexers to leave can work, as well as last ditch ethnic cleansing. Right now we have 100 million mexers and blacks with the demographic going to the moon while you yammer on about negotiations with the Others. You are daffy and drain the blood from otherwise sensible, not “rational” whites.

Whites are getting up their blood-lust, and that is Darwinian, Good (Good for Whites…the “morality” of the threatened tribe). The only people to talk about Universal morality are fools, liberals, lefties, and you.

@Matt 10/23/11 12:36 am: Control of the money creation power was the central question in the run-up to the American Colonial rebellion. The tax on tea is historical window dressing. Efforts to establish a central bank began ten years before the constitution was adopted. The privately owned central bank is the single issue that runs throughout all of American history: The Bank Of North America, 1781, The First Bank Of The United States, 1791, The Second Bank Of The United States, 1816, The interregnum National Banking Act, 1863,1864, and finally the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913. The soverign money creation power in self intrested, private hands is not AN issue, or A problem. It is THE issue, and THE problem. Without the money creation power residing in Congress, America is not a sovereignty. To put any issue ahead of this one, is to occupy ourselves with tilting at political windmills.

If I might interject some evidence on the ethnocentrism of another ethnic group on whom Professor Macdonald has also written, you might be interested in the problem of gypsy beggars in the UK, who turn out to be wealthy:http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0169lg6/Panorama_Britains_Child_Beggars/
(I’m not sure if this is viewable outside the UK and will probably only be available for a week or two)
The ease with which the woman lies at the end is remarkable and the behaviour throughout is a lot like that described by Professor Macdonald. I don’t think corporate crime is the property of any one ethnic group, but ethnocentrism is certainly a force here when the power of money kicks in!

Mr. Parrott, thank you for expressing much of my intention very eloquently. George, I am no Jew and I am of celtic and french descent. I simply think we must not bludgeon others but persuade them. In this way we can score and restore as much as is possible given our present realities. Mr. Parrott’s “universal particularist” is a perfect expression of my intention.

“we must educate our target audience about the racial and Jewish dimensions of our problem”

While we are at it, we must also educate ourselves about the same questions. White nationalists do complain about race-replacement and Jewish aggression, but often in a haphazard way.

For example, not every opponent of race-replacement actually understands how immigration brings down the white birth-rate, and WN intellectuals usually refuse to say that the destruction of the economy and the impoverishment of middle class White families are entirely the result of third-world immigration. It sounds too simplistic.

Besides, WN intellectuals spend their time blaming big business for the immigration disaster. By doing so, they put less intelligent people on the wrong track. Even if big business had a collective interest in race-replacement, which it doesn’t have, the best strategy for WN intellectuals would still be to educate people about how Jewish activism makes race-replacement possible. Instead, we have WN intellectuals who try to sound reasonable to themselves by claiming that big business really believes it needs to import millions of low IQ foreigners!

@Matt Parrott: Thought provoking article. I did have one technical point I’d like to chew on. You said:

Attempts at overt supremacism and particularism cannot work in the contemporary context because the degree of social integration aided by both geography and by technology renders it impossible to dehumanize the “other” in the necessary way. Anybody who leaves his basement in America can see for himself that most Blacks are law-abiding, only a minority of Jews are actively trying to destroy the White race, and plenty of Mexicans are charming and hard-working family-oriented folks.

But isn’t it true that Whites in the South lived very intimately with Blacks for 200+ years, yet had no problem thinking of them as inferior? Indeed, they were able to buy and sell them and put maximum restrictions on their daily lives, even after they were freed. This was despite allowing Blacks women involvement in the childcare of their offspring (a position of high trust). The same seems true in South African apartheid. South African Whites had Blacks serving in their home, but they never considered them equals. In fact, I think it could be argued that most Blacks accepted that they were in some sense inferior to Whites at the time.

India may be the ultimate example of a caste system, in which people walked freely among human beings they considered beneath contempt and unworthy of even the smallest charity, even though they must have seen with their own eyes that these were human beings.

I’m not advocating any of sort of supermacism, obviously, but I am struck by how much people do succumb to the ideology of their time, regardless of how much contact they have with others that should provide empirical counterweights to their accepted beliefs.

@Joe Webb:
National socialism, or international socialism, for that matter, has the same outcome – grinding poverty and a police state.

Have a look at the bankrupt legacy of Perón in Argentina; can you imagine who is in command down there now? For the joys of tariff-walls in South America, do a google on “The lost decade”.

If you can’t control the political process now, how do you intend to carry out your NS reform – by Beer hall putsch?

The Asian countries are rich because of low taxation, light regulatory burden, no welfare, strong family values, innate ability and hard work. Their wealth is in spite of their governments’ mercantilism, not because of it.

Outsourcing as it appears today is the result of many decades of over-valuation of the USD, attributable to the Fed’s monetary policy.

@George: George, I don’t know the best approach to getting more Whites to think about their race is, but when Thomas and others talk about a “softer tone”, I don’t think it is for the purpose of impressing people of color.
I think the purpose might be to get other White people to open up. The idea is to recruit more Whites and get a wider audience among Whites. We have labored under a stereotype of the angry/bitter/hateful WN image that Hollywood created (shaved skull replete with tats and piercings).

One of the great things about this site, Hoosier nation, Counter Currents and any of the dozens of other sites popping up is that they look like sites done by real adults with something serious to say. I am not sure what the right tone to strike is for maximum effectiveness, but the ultimate purpose is not (or should not be) to impress other races with our niceness, but to convince other Whites we are not genocidal madmen. This is an unfair bigoted stereotype that has been created of us, but we have labor under it anyway. We have to find a way to appeal to a broader section of Whites – to get them to listen.

total nonsense, intellectually, politically, and philosophically. A Universalist Particularism is impossible philosophically and logically in that any Particularism may run head-on into another Particularism.

I have critiicized you before for this kind of silliness and daffiness. Our White particularism, in particular, is running head-on into blacks and browns, and Jews. War is what is coming. Grow up.

When war comes, we’ll need allies. It won’t come in a vacuum but rather in a global context. As such, a nationalist platform which validates potential allies (including non-White allies) would make far more sense in a geopolitical context. Universal particularism can and will be a strong match for parochial particularism, as it has proven time and again in the past.

(by the way it is “tack”, a sailing term for tacking into the wind.)

I do happen to be driven by grand abstractions. I do not perceive what I’m doing in pragmatic terms but in terms of a sweeping crusade. I’m not “running an angle” or “tacking”, as it were. I’m simply trying to explain that only a small subset of White Americans are even capable of thinking in the amoral terms you’re proposing they think in. It’s a non-starter. It intuitively strikes them as creepy. They would rather die for their abstractions than live for concrete carnal considerations.

Ordinary people are not idealistic and they are certainly not abstract.

We must be interacting with different ordinary White people.

You appear to have no Darwin in your analysis, Where is human bio-diversity? Where is evolution? Where is the White Race as the Best Race and the race most worth surviving and prospering?

I can explain it in Darwinian terms if you prefer.

Some human populations have developed exceptional levels of abstract thought. This confers an advantage in increased intelligence and creativity, with a key vulnerability: the base instincts are increasingly overshadowed by abstractions. The most abstraction-oriented populations require abstraction-oriented behavioral models.

We cannot rely on our instincts and our parochial self-interests in the same way other populations do. Our abstraction-dominated psyches are our chief advantage but they’re also more vulnerable to subversion. Given the proper abstractions, we can martyr ourselves en masse as we did at Thermopylae. Given the right subversion, we can have what we have now: martyring ourselves en masse to appease the competitors who subverted us.

We are not liberals. We are White Nationalists. When the next ice age descends in a thousand years or so, are you going to tell White folks that we had a good run, but now Africa gets to have its run, while Whites freeze?

In a scenario where it comes down to our survival or theirs, then I wouldn’t hesitate to fight for our own survival at their expense. But that’s not the case. There is no Ice Age. There is no Hobbesian battle of all against all. It’s not necessary for “us” to hate, fight, and kill everybody who is “them” to secure our survival or even our comfort.

I gotta say, you are an idiot.

Herp derp.

What the country needs is a directed economy: national capitalism, or national socialism. National capitalism sounds better. Internationalism is killing our economy. Country First, then economy. Like the Asian countries, which have directed economies, we must go that way.

Of course, this is pretty much my position on economic issues, too.

Nothing I said negates any of that.

We need good pay for ordinary folks so that they can buy, buy, buy real goods like cars, washing machines, houses (if they can afford them), and so on.

You would have done well for yourself to quit when you were ahead. Consumption for consumption’s sake is allowing the interest of the people to be subjugated to the interest of the capitalists to perpetually expand. Americans have enough stuff, FFS.

Again, Matt, you are a liberal. We are not liberals.

On my first read, I thought you were being nonsensical, homebrewing your own private definitions of “liberal” and “conservative”. Then, after thinking about it for a moment, it all made sense: You’re for hating, fighting, and killing everybody in the world who’s a “them”, a supporter of the most egregious excesses of the rapacious capitalist machine in full effect, and a proponent of selfish parochial considerations above all else. You’re a Fox News Republican!

I did not propose that this one effort would solve the problem once and for all. This problem is indeed merely a part of a much larger problem. This solution I’m proposing is indeed a part of a much larger solution.

That teat is the privately owned, National Central Bank. Nothing substantial will ever change until that fundamental evil is eliminated.

The National Central Bank is merely a part of a much larger problem and solving that problem is only one part of the solution.

We can abolish their central banks, hamstring them with “robin hood” taxes and whatnot. Doing that is all well and good, but our problem is a much deeper one that goes far beyond money. It involves evolutionary psychology, metaphysics, spirituality, artistic expression, and more. This front, the financial front, is one we should definitely try to win on if we can find an opening, but it’s certainly not the front.

Let one “person of color” make the charge of racism against you, and all is lost in your effort to garner support.

With each passing year, this tactic is growing less and less effective. Pat Buchanan’s new explicitly pro-White book just got face time on Drudge and is on top of the political bestseller list. He’s showing up on Political Cesspool right in the middle of it and the pointers and sputterers are pointing and sputtering—to no avail. Your position is defeatism, plain and simple.

I find it odd too, that you seem to insist that any effort on the part of Whites to have an existence separate from other races (for instance, in a nation of their own) is “supremacism” or an expression of desire for “world domination”.

Well, that would have indeed been odd if I had ever denounced or distanced myself from White Nationalism or White Separatism one single time. My phrase “universal particularism” is another way of saying “nationalism”. I’ve said “nationalism” plenty of times and nationalism is my position: That all humans should indeed be accorded the degree of mutual respect and autonomy necessary to determine their own way of life and pursue their own destiny in their own sovereign context.

You’re making the mistake of thinking that us being courteous will result in White-haters similarly being courteous. They won’t be. Ever. You’re falling into the trap that snags so many Whites: the idea that everyone is as reasonable as us. The level of hatred that White-haters have for us knows no bounds and is not amenable to any kind of logic or reason.

As I believe I’ve clarified more than once, this is not about placating that White-haters. This is about reaching persuadables who are more or less on board with us and sympathetic with us, but have obstacles in the way of truly supporting us. One of those obstacles is a fear of our being immoral.

Money rules the world. If wealthy Whites just invested money into supporting causes that benefit Whites there would be no reason to have to appeal to anyone to see things our way. Imagine if tools like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett actually cared about the future of their own people, we’d have it made.

No. Money doesn’t rule the world. Money is merely leverage. At the end of the day, the world is ruled by tribalist ideologues who’ve mastered the art of manipulating money. The Jews don’t rule the world because they’re rich; they’re rich because they rule the world. The Muslim Brotherhood’s power isn’t growing and consolidating because they are rich. It’s growing because the tribalist ideologues have a passionate vanguard and a sympathetic mass audience. Our trillions of dollars are no match against nations under the spell of their Political Islamism because ideas are more valuable than gold.

“… is to be a “universal particularist”: one who recognizes a universal human moral construct within which nations, tribes, and families are validated. Given the idealistic and abstract nature of our target audience, this is the only tact which stands a chance of working on the street.” (by the way it is “tack”, a sailing term for tacking into the wind.)

total nonsense, intellectually, politically, and philosophically. A Universalist Particularism is impossible philosophically and logically in that any Particularism may run head-on into another Particularism.

I have critiicized you before for this kind of silliness and daffiness. Our White particularism, in particular, is running head-on into blacks and browns, and Jews. War is what is coming. Grow up.

As far Other Particularisms are concerned, they are of no interest to me and to anybody who cares about the White Race. “:Given the idealistic and abstract nature of our target audience,” this is more gobblegook. Ordinary people are not idealistic and they are certainly not abstract.

You appear to have no Darwin in your analysis, Where is human bio-diversity? Where is evolution? Where is the White Race as the Best Race and the race most worth surviving and prospering? You cannot valorize because you are entangled in your moralizing. Blacks have as much right to survive as Whites? (Particularisms of extremely low intelligence, savagery, etc. are just as important as White Achievement, Beauty, etc?)

Equality raises its dopey head in your philosophy. Again, absent is survival of the fittest race, the fittest individuals, etc. You are a liberal.

We are not liberals. We are White Nationalists. When the next ice age descends in a thousand years or so, are you going to tell White folks that we had a good run, but now Africa gets to have its run, while Whites freeze?

I gotta say, you are an idiot. Ditto that other guy who likes racial pluralism.

On the economic front, you have no good ideas. You are playing the same game as the democracks (spend on good things) and the repugnicans, grab all you can.

What the country needs is a directed economy: national capitalism, or national socialism. National capitalism sounds better. Internationalism is killing our economy. Country First, then economy. Like the Asian countries, which have directed economies, we must go that way. Right now there is little consumer demand because ordinary folks have lost 9.9 % of their inflation adjusted wages/salaries just in the last 4 years. and that has been ongoing for a couple decades now, and will get worse. The trend continues with jobs and capital fleeing the homeland. Robin Hood is a ridiculous term. We don’t rob from the rich to help the poor, we tell the rich where to put their money…more or less, since the corporations are sitting on two trillion right now.

Half of that should be “taxed” and checks sent to Working Americans making ordinary wages and salaries. The other half should be directed into investment in infrastructure, not welfare/education. We spend way too much on educating idiots, a total waste of resources.

We need good pay for ordinary folks so that they can buy, buy, buy real goods like cars, washing machines, houses (if they can afford them), and so on. Right now consumer demand is the sick man of Europe and the US. That will only be righted when Globalism is severely regulated, tariffs are used again, and US manufacturers are protected against quasi-slave labor’s wages in the second and third world.

@ Mat Parrott: A “Robbin Hood” tax on financial transactions and currency trades, while possibly satisfying an emotional, subjective desire for revenge, is unlikely to bring any long range relief from the global scourge of Rampant Speculation, and it’s inevitable sidekick, Manipulation. Simple rectitude of intentions would be nice as a staying influence contra the shark ethic of eat the wounded. but we bathe ourselves in mere wishes to dare hope that brains pickled in the brine of ancient, racist Talmudic particularism, would ever entertain a thought as to ceasing their depredations. Rampant speculative manipulation is not a stand alone evil. RSM, on the scale we witness today has a source, a wellspring, a feedvalve, a succulent teat that feeds it a copious flow of the milk of money. That teat is the privately owned, National Central Bank. Nothing substantial will ever change until that fundamental evil is eliminated. Inflation is an expansion of the money supply. Every unit of account (Dollar) that exceeds the volume necessary to move goods from producer to consumer, exerts an upward hydraulic pressure on price structures, erodes the fundamental morality of equity in exchange, gives the borrower the hammer over the lender and further opens the way to rampant speculation and manipulation. Inflation enables speculation by the willing, and forces speculation on the unwilling, and the ignorant.

Jesse Ventura had shown that in spite of modest war chest and hostile local affiliates of the piss-stream media, the System can be beat.
The task is to formulate an issue that would bring under your banners the otherwise tuned out masses.
Taking control of the unstoppable flow of illegals is one such concern. Millions of uninvited foreigners pour into the country only to end up disappearing into the black hole; often without a trace.
How is it fair to black, white, brown, yellow, red, green-with-orange-dots Americans, many of whom working 2 jobs, to have to foot the bill via increased taxation for all the freebies the illegals apply for and receive ? How is it possible for an illegal to qualify for in-state college tuition rate when a legal applicant from next door state is required to pay double ?
Once the racial angle is removed, the usual ethnic pimps and their Judaic spiritual guides won’t have much of a leg to stand on.

This move for a Tobin tax is being promoted (apparently) by Soros’ interests. Hurts jobbers/market-makers much more than position-traders like Soros. A nice way of hobbling the opposition, and a great leap forward for the internationalists.

From Adbusters:
” We want you to slow down some of that $1.3-trillion easy money that’s sloshing around the global casino each day – enough cash to fund every social program and environmental initiative in the world.” http://goo.gl/EJma6

Doesn’t that set a few alarm bells ringing?

Respectfully, the focus should be on ending the Fed from whence the money originates, not on taxing in order that globalists’ coffers get a boost.

@Matt Parrott:
“It’s not about placating our oppressors. It’s about confirming to our potential supporters that we’re not malignant.”
– This you will never be able to do, because your potential supporters, such as they are, quake in their boots at the very thought of being marginalized, since the spectre of being unemployed as a result of being associated with a “racist” organization (such as TOO is no doubt considered to be by the SPLC and like groups) will override your attempts to assuage their fears. Let one “person of color” make the charge of racism against you, and all is lost in your effort to garner support. And of coure the MSM will be in the forefront of the effort to villify any attempts at mainstreaming your movement. This has historically been the case and the modus operandi of the many political groups operative in maligning Whites and our interests-especially the Jewish groups (the most “particularist” people existant, to use your favorite adjective and noun). I find it odd too, that you seem to insist that any effort on the part of Whites to have an existence separate from other races (for instance, in a nation of their own) is “supremacism” or an expression of desire for “world domination”. Such is hardly the case. One could certainly make a case for such an accusation regarding the Jewish people, however, and they may quite possibly have already acheived that goal in a financial sense.
“Yes. The majority of them actually are, even in Detroit”
You are entitled to your view of course, I prefer to believe what my eyes and senses tell me about the world, and a group of people with whom I have had extensive experience. Whites have been “educated” not to generalize, but it is necessary to survival in this world, “exceptional blacks” not withstanding.
– all too rare exceptions.

You’re making the mistake of thinking that us being courteous will result in White-haters similarly being courteous. They won’t be. Ever. You’re falling into the trap that snags so many Whites: the idea that everyone is as reasonable as us. The level of hatred that White-haters have for us knows no bounds and is not amenable to any kind of logic or reason.

Look at Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor: both of them are well-educated, well-spoken, and courteous, and both are still portrayed as demons by the media. The reason is because certain thoughts have been pegged as *Evil* by the academics, politicians, and media elites, so no matter how we put our ideas forward we are still going to be seen as irredeemably evil.

Money rules the world. If wealthy Whites just invested money into supporting causes that benefit Whites there would be no reason to have to appeal to anyone to see things our way. Imagine if tools like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett actually cared about the future of their own people, we’d have it made.

– All we have to accomplish is the mainstream acceptability of White Identity. Once identity returns to our people, everything else will follow.

– This can be achieved *entirely* from within the multicultural paradigm. This is because a framework of accepting/welcoming/celebrating the dignity and difference and right to continuity of all races and creeds is *already* that paradigm, to the exclusion of whites.

We have to start realizing that we don’t have to fight against the multiculturalism, because everything we need can be accomplished from within it, on the basis of fairness and equality to all groups.

@Matt Parrott:
Finally someone articulates the middle ground. Well done Matt. One has to take a pragmatic stance when selling a White identity to fellow whites still frozen in the matrix like state of tribe mind-control.
-What will never work is the hard line approach which states: All morality is bad for Whites and if we just acted like Supermen in a Darwinian framework-our racial problems would be solved. Was this same feat not previously attempted with disastrous results?
-And try selling the “morality is bad” line to White families on a macro level. Talk about a turn off. Thank goodness someone on TOO can see the relevancy of morality to our cause. Too many posters FAIL to see this logic and it is quite remarkable. On one hand, they whine and complain that the tribe has successfully used “moral arguments” to clothe their agenda, but then trash the same strategy when we attempt to use it. How is that logical? Attraction works better with honey, not vinegar. People are drawn to action via noble causes, not wicked stratagems set against the conscious.
-bottomline- Social capital is maintained via strong community values. We can come together for a cause while maintaining our values and ethics. This phenomenon is evidenced by the bible belts staunch support for the NRA. haha

Are the majority of the inhabitants of those newly devastated (and formerly prosperous) areas “law abiding”? Apparently Attorney General Eric Holder agrees with your outlook concerning the law-abiding nature of “the majority” (always need a qualifier, don’t we?) of blacks since he will not even consent to prosecute them (remember the Black Panthers who were intimidating voters at the Philadelphia polls?).

Yes. The majority of them actually are, even in Detroit. Additionally, affirmative action, the prison system, and mimicry make the gap seem smaller still. The bottom line is that the majority of persuadables both see with their own eyes how Blacks behave and perform in the aggregate, but believe that exceptions and exceptional Blacks can and should be included. Any worldview which ignores these is bound to be stillborn in the minds of the large and growing subset of the White American population who have an amicable relationship with at least one non-White.

You may be right in this regard, but the approach you are advocating has been tried for the past 60 years and does not work either. Attempts at placating our oppressors will only be met with more contempt and derision as well as further reduction of our status in this society, which indeed you yourself pointed out with the example of Occupy Wall Street’s demands that Whites step to the back of the line.

It’s not about placating our oppressors. It’s about confirming to our potential supporters that we’re not malignant. Unless your prerogative is supremacism and/or world domination, then there’s no compromise in framing your arguments in universal particularist terms.

The whole “tried and failed” thing is an empty rhetorical device. Some folks have tried supremacism, other’s have tried various forms of crypsis and subversion of the subverters. All sorts of strategies in between have been tried. Were the strategies flawed? Was the execution flawed? Was the timing off? You don’t know and neither do I. I try to approach it like a scientist, one who strikes a balance between the theorizing and testing, moving forward patiently and methodically with hypotheses after they’ve been tested in the real world.

Gee, care to elaborate on how “we” are going to affect the internation bankers and Jewish financial networks?

Hence the necessity of striving for strategic alliances with strange bedfellows. We don’t have the power or influence to lead, but we can target what little power and influence we do have behind initiatives like this one which are compatible with our goals. That’s a starting point, one from which we can steadily grow from.

” Anybody who leaves his basement in America can see for himself that most Blacks are law-abiding,…”
Well Matt, I have been “out of my basement” and have worked in a prison for over 2 decades. Care to take a guess at which race the overwhelming majority of those prisoners represent? (and this is true of any prison in the US) And do not forget that they come from a segment of the population that constitutes less than 20% of America’s poulation. Or consider cities like Detroit that look like 3rd world countries. Are the majority of the inhabitants of those newly devastated (and formerly prosperous) areas “law abiding”? Apparently Attorney General Eric Holder agrees with your outlook concerning the law-abiding nature of “the majority” (always need a qualifier, don’t we?) of blacks since he will not even consent to prosecute them (remember the Black Panthers who were intimidating voters at the Philadelphia polls?).
“Attempts at overt supremacism and particularism cannot work in the contemporary context because the degree of social integration aided by both geography and by technology renders it impossible to dehumanize the “other” in the necessary way.”
– You may be right in this regard, but the approach you are advocating has been tried for the past 60 years and does not work either. Attempts at placating our oppressors will only be met with more contempt and derision as well as further reduction of our status in this society, which indeed you yourself pointed out with the example of Occupy Wall Street’s demands that Whites step to the back of the line. That is rapidly becoming our assigned place in this society as a whole as blacks, Hispanics and others get government grants and preferential treatment with regard to college education at our children’s expense, 3rd worlders get the better jobs that do exist in the US via H1-B visas as well as government loans for start-up businesses at bedrock low interest rates. By the way, this is not about “overt racism”, rather at this point in time it is simply about the survival of my race into the future. As I said in my comment above; I am not advocating violence. We are at this point in time approaching endangered species status.
“I can value and care for my own children first without hating or denigrating other children as “inferior” to mine. ”
Once your children reach 2nd class citizen status and are considered “inferior” to the newly dominant majority “people of color”, how will you help them then and of what avail will your “reasonable” political posture be to them at that point? How will you feel if more qualified child is passed over for a high paying position with a company or the government? For that matter, how will the White children of the future (if our people survive) view their ancestors once they have arrived at 2nd class minority status?
“we must educate our target audience about the racial and Jewish dimensions of our problem. In order to keep our movement moving, …”
How? Word of mouth? That has been tried for many decades. The media is owned by Jewish interests and the education system is in their pocket as well. It was fashioned into a tool for behavior control and PC thinking (very little “education” goes on in today’s public schools) by the Frankfurt School radicals of Columbia U back in the 1930’s and “teachers” are its willing and well paid agents (or stooges) today.
“We can begin by standing behind a proposal which would hit international bankers hard and Jewish financial networks the hardest.”
-Gee, care to elaborate on how “we” are going to affect the internation bankers and Jewish financial networks? . Nazi Germany printed its own currency during WW2 and the internation bankers pulled out all the stops to destroy that country (yes, yes, I am aware of all the other reasons for the antagonism toward Germany during that period). It is amusing to contemplate White interests being so unified as to take on such powerful entities as the bankers or the Jewish financial network when there is not even ONE organization in existence whose mission is the furtherance of “the interests of the White people” (I.e.: aka the NAACP or like the many hundreds of such Jewish organizations).
Please, Matt! Do not keep us in suspense with regard to your gameplan on this matter! It would make a fascinating read.

@thomas mallon: Your “message” is eerily similar to that of the Zionist/Marxist/globalist that are attempting to genocide the White race.

The main problem with your suggestion is that it doesn’t square with reality. You are wrong when you say there is only one race – “the human race.” That is merely globalist anti-White propaganda. There are three races of humans: Caucasian, Negro, and Mongoloid (four, if you count “mixed-race”). And unfortunately for multi-racialists, the natural forces of evolution demand that those races be at odds and in competition with one another.

The only solution to this problem is nationalism, or the simple, time-honored idea that each ethnie or nation of people have its own land and sphere of influence in which it can develop a culture and way of life suitable to its members and gain some measure of control over its own destiny.

“The key political demographic faction in play right now is the socially conservative White Democrat. After decades of perceiving their DNC as the party of the “little guy” against the greedy Republican fat cats, they’re increasingly uncomfortable and unwelcome in their home party. With each passing year, the party gets a little more overtly anti-White and anti-family. With each passing year, more of the union jobs Democrats supposedly defend are being shipped to countries the Democrats brokered “free trade” deals with. The single biggest shift since the mass migration of the Dixiecrats to the GOP is underway: the White Flight from the DNC ghetto.”

You make a very important point, though I believe it’s still a net improvement and is not exactly—as you suggest—digging our hole even deeper.

The casino capitalism that this would curtail is strongly leveraged and less transparent and accountable than Treasury funds. George Soros with a billion dollars is more fearsome than a government bureaucracy with a billion dollars. The government is deeply indebted, inefficient, and accountable (admittedly to a diminishing degree) to public scrutiny.

Furthermore, history has shown that this tax ends up raising nowhere near the projected amount…precisely because it curtails a huge amount of the speculation, “noise”, technical analysis voodoo, and Office Space-style embezzlement shenanigans.

While it would indeed be ideal if this pound of flesh extracted from the money changers were directed to TOO’s PayPal account instead of the US Treasury, I believe the Robin Hood tax would be a big step forward from where we’re at.

Rather than being a bleeding-heart moral universalist or a cutthroat moral particularist, the ideal position is to be a “universal particularist”: one who recognizes a universal human moral construct within which nations, tribes, and families are validated. Given the idealistic and abstract nature of our target audience, this is the only tact which stands a chance of working on the street.

Attempts at overt supremacism and particularism cannot work in the contemporary context because the degree of social integration aided by both geography and by technology renders it impossible to dehumanize the “other” in the necessary way. Anybody who leaves his basement in America can see for himself that most Blacks are law-abiding, only a minority of Jews are actively trying to destroy the White race, and plenty of Mexicans are charming and hard-working family-oriented folks.

I can value and care for my own children first without hating or denigrating other children as “inferior” to mine. I can do the same thing relative to my ethnic family. What I believe Mallon is promoting is an approach which doesn’t conceal or compromise our goals yet strikes the majority of contemporary White Americans as morally coherent—if perhaps still uncomfortable and unorthodox for them.

The whole [Robinhood tax] initiative is being proposed by Leftists pursuing another revenue stream for their global agenda. They’re already getting ahead of themselves in scheming about all the silly liberal initiatives the new money could be wasted on. It will, of course, be wasted in one way or another. But that’s beside the point.

Um, no it’s not. That money will be used by the G20 or UN in its global anti-White agenda. Why would it make even a modicum of sense to INCREASE the current amount of resources being against us?

The point is that imposing this tax would curtail the most egregious speculation and market manipulation.

Complete bulls–t. What evidence is there anywhere to support that? The Matt Taibbi quote MacDonald referenced makes the point well:

The system assumes a certain minimum level of ethical behavior and civic instinct over and above what is spelled out by the regulations. If those ethics are absent — well, this thing isn’t going to work, no matter what we do.

Indeed!

By throwing our support behind this initiative, we can take up the fight against the international bankers. It’s an opportunity to educate our audience about the identities and histories of the global financiers, as well.

Whole lot of conflation going on there. Educate, of course. That’s what’s going on here, Mr. Parrott no exception. But for Pete’s sake, when you’re in trouble the first thing you do is stop digging the hole that’s swallowing you! We don’t need more money in the hands of the international elite to be used against us.

@ Thomas Mallon:
“Whites should rather speak about respecting and helping across these race lines. Then more people might listen.”
If you are not a Jew, and you are a White man, then you are an excellent example of the sort of individual that has caused our people so much trouble and the loss of our former prominence in the world. Go hug your colored friends and hope that they remember your fawning posture when our numbers have dwindled to minority status. Maybe they won’t include you in the violence that they will visit upon the rest of White humanity, but I doubt that very much. Doesn’t the examples of South Africa and Zimbabwe (former Rhodesia) teach people such as you anything? “Coexisting in peace” is a White man’s fantasy, an illusion that the other races do not suffer from even blacks with their sub-par average intellect.
” There also needs to be an emphasis that there is only one human race or specie.”
-This is utter nonsense, though the PC public schools will not teach anything other than this tripe. There are many obvious as well as documented anatomical differences between Whites and blacks, both intellectually and physically : blacks do not have as many facial muscles (which are responsible for the many facial expressions that we can make) as do Whites. Blacks are physically stronger, intellectually deficient (don’t believe that? Blacks were chosen for slavery in Colonial times for just that reason (American Indians would not allow themselves to be enslaved). Only 1% of Air Force pilots are black, and it sure as hell is not because the Air Force would not like to have more of them to show off for PC reasons), they have higher testosterone levels-even the women, than do Whites, their skulls are thicker than ours (measureably so), and on, and on. So what if they are bipedal? Do you imagine that merely having the same general shape and size alone constitutes their being “human”? Are you aware that blacks in Liberia today are practicing cannibalism? They revert to their natural behavior patterns when left to their own devices. Perhaps you didn’t know that the Talmud states that Jews alone are human and all others are sub-human? Those of us Whites who feel that blacks are not fully human are not alone in this view. I am not advocating violence against them, (unless our survival is at stake) but the races (or at least ours) need to be separated from them for OUR safety and the safety of our children.

Mike, great article. But I would disagree on one point. The average attendee to one of these events is much different in the heartland than at one of the urban bastions of liberalism in the northeast or left coast. I walked by an “Occupy Wall Street” gathering recently in a very left-wing city. A few observations about those gathered:
1) I would be shocked if more than 10% had political views right of center.
2) Though certainly not a majority, God’s Chosen People were well represented (I’d guess 20-30%). Ironically, many of the men in suits out for lunch in the financial district also appeared to be Chosenites.
3) Most had that soft, pampered, moonbat-left, look about them. I’d bet more than half hadn’t worked a day of honest labor in their lives. For some reason I thought of George Wallace’s famous quip about not being able to park a bicycle straight.

Matt,
That was awesome-beautifully written and very accessible. I think the virtues of service and stewardship are exactly what we need at this point. We also need to love our fellow Whites, at all costs. We have been violated and publicly scorned. We have been collectively hurt and need to come together in a mass act of love towards one another. Because in the end, all we have is each other. No one cares for us, like us.

Thomas Mallon is on the right track. Most deracinated, suburban whites don’t want to associate themselves with what might be seen as angry, spiteful rhetoric. Much of the rhetoric of the white nationalist movement is indeed angry and spiteful. I’m not denying that people have a very good reason to be enraged at their own dispossession, but couching the rhetoric in softer terms when approaching the general populace might go a long way in pulling back the veil for your average white American.

“White Advocates don’t necessarily share political views beyond the immediate scope of our common defense of our heritage and identity.”

Maan, that’s the joke of the day. It looks Matt has never heard of White leaders of the Democrat, Republican, Tea Party or Zionist Christian thugs – who all agree on one thing – the obedience to Jewish command….

@Luke . Thanks for the input . I snooped around Hushmail and realized their was some funny stuff going on , good to know my suspicions were confirmed.What I have discovered is that the ‘System’ won’t allow you to create a mail account without logging the password to it . Neomailbox which I reciently joined has disabled its imap & smtp server password facility so you have to use the one log in password Which makes it easy to snag if you use a mail program that can be used with pgp . This I believe was a part of the 911 scam . The imposition of new security laws to make the citizens ‘safe’ , which really just allows the Talmudic Zionist Imperialist Government to spy on the goyem and make sure he doesn’t try and conspire against their tyranny. Its amazing how cunning the whole operation has/is been .

I must say this is the best article I have read from you yet. Something more powerfully organic is starting to emerge from your discourse and I am getting a feel of leadership here.

As for the Robin Hood metaphor, it is not something I can relate too. I have seen too many drug dealers believe they are Robin Hoods vigilantes when all they do is destroy our nations. I first thought it was a painting of William Tell, in reference to William K. Black. That would have been a more complex parallel to establish; but it would indicate that Bill Black does favor the best first step, that is re-instating Glass-Steagall as the ultimate tool in deconstructing current global financial despotism. By diminishing the amount of dollar resources investment banking can use as leverage to manipulate financial assets prices and perception of values, you restructure all of the political and economic relationships order of finance and commerce. Because financiers from investment banking will lose their capacity to overly coordinate the manipulation of markets, they will have to go back and invest in genuine ventures in order to survive. Commercial banks will then be able to resume what they used to do best, conservative commercial and personal lending to reasonable corporations and Americans.

The 1% tax sounds nice at first glance but it is an impossibility. Why? Because over a one year period it could imply that financial institutions would owe more in taxes than the hard net tangible assets they truly own. Remember that these institutions are highly leveraged and money transaction turnover rates are intensive. When, for example, a transaction from a financial institution involves a 1 billion dollar amount, the real tangible assets behind that amount are between 30 and 40 million dollars. A 1% tax would imply that you would eat 10 million dollars of that 30 or 40 million dollars, so a simple annual turnover rate of 1,6% (4/250 days) would wipe out all net tangible assets from financial institutions. But real actual turnover rate is a lot higher than that, so institutions would all go bankrupt in a matter of weeks.

Now, as William Tell aims perfectly, so does William K. Black when he supports re-instating Glass-Steagal like measures, and so is Congresswoman Kaptur with her bill HR 1489 to reintroduce prudent banking, and its 47 co-sponsors. This will bring tangible durable benefits to the economy. It is not the only measure needed but it is the essential unavoidable first step.

As for the William Tell metaphor, I am not sure it is the right one except for the incredible aiming. Many things have been written on the Tell Legend, but the only thing I read in it is that in order to save the future and purity, while simultaneously take the chance to terminate it, you must involve yourself in seeding sin, in an ultimate gamble. The arrow penetrating the apple, the apple resting on the child, on the future and innocence, I believe that this is what it means; and some scholars, while not deciphering this symbolism, have hinted that there is a broad Jewish origin to Tells’ Legend. It rests on the archetypical concepts of spiritual sacrifices.

No we do not need to put a supplicating, apologizing foot forward. We have a right to exist, and if they are going to blood libel us with the charge that our thriving is genocide or something for others, too bad. We have to fight through this, not surrender to it or defend against it.

The trouble with many writers here (not Kevin MacDonald as such) is that there is not enough emphasis on the right for all races to love and preserve their particulart race. This alone makes preserving the white race understandable.

There also needs to be an emphasis that there is only one human race or specie. What is to prevent the races from cooperating with each other respectfully and sharing with each other; after all, people by nature tend to the default position of wishing to be with their own; but that doesn’t mean hostility must exist between races.

The emphasis on a “white” nation or movement only provokes those who fear resurgence of groups like the Klan, understandably. Whites should rather speak about respecting and helping across these race lines. Then more people might listen.

Oh, and regarding Herman Cain and his ‘supposedly’ meteoric rise? I predicted after Obongo was installed in the White House that the jews who have hijacked our nation would be very likely to do whatever they could to make sure no White man ever again assumed the office of the Presidency. I also predicted that if a White man did get boosted again into that gig, that he’d be a bigger jewish toe sucker than even Jorge Boosch was, and that he’d be a race traitorous slab of anti-white human filth – which has become a prerequisite for any White male politician who wants to get the approval of jews to run for political office on the national level.

Now, putting the incredibly all-important issue of race aside for a second – let’s examine Herman Cain, and pretend he is colorless and raceless. This guy has never held public office of any kind. This guy therefore has zero track record upon which the prospective White voting base of the GOP can consult to get some idea on what this guy’s true opinions are on just about every critical issue under the sun. In other words, he is a complete unknown – and is even less qualified to put our faith in than was Obongo.

Let’s use an analogy here to make my point. Let’s say your car had a mechanical problem of some kind, and you were in need of some assistance to get it repaired. So, since you had a second automobile – you weren’t actually stranded, and so you place an ad in the local paper asking to be contacted by any interested party who could help you get your car fixed and restored to full running condition. You receive 5 or 6 responses, and decide to invite all of these guys over to your house on the same day so you can show them the car and conduct interviews on their skills and experience, and ask them for references.

Of the 6 guys who show up, one of them tells you that he has absolutely no prior experience working on cars and doesn’t have any references that you can check into, and doesn’t have any prior employers who can testify to his ability and skill.

This is the guy these stupid, mostly White Tea party morons decide is their man for the job. See my point?

Alarm bells should be going off inside the empty heads of every White race realist in this nation over this Cain guy. He is a ringer, people. He is dangerous, very, very dangerous and he is being pushed at us by the same jews who foisted Obongo on us.

Wise up, White man. Its time to pull your head out of your butt and engage your brain and stop getting snookered by your #1 racial enemies.

@Marvelous Spirit: Ditto this question. I am getting increasingly uncomfortable with using the various free web mail services, and am looking for an alternative that is secure. Hushmail was exposed a few years ago as a ZOG honey pot, so that is off the list for me.

This is a mature article offering useful advice for a way forward. In any event, I would rather have a state owned electric tram in my city than the money go to a banker. Yes, the economy will tank eventually but what the heck? Trams at least look cool and I can use them to get to work.